Date:06/04/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/06/stories/2006040614030500.htm

Karnataka - Bangalore

BMTC told to punish errant drivers

Staff Reporter

High CourtRound-up Division Bench takes exception to rash and negligent driving

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday took exception to rash and negligent driving by some drivers of the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) and directed it to take steps to ensure that its personnel, particularly drivers, were conscious of their responsibilities while driving a heavy vehicle.

The court noticed that in "every alternate case, where there is loss of life, the drivers of buses or owners are not implicated or punished under the Motor Vehicle Act." It said the BMTC, as observed by the Supreme Court, had been bestowed with much more responsibility and accountability, and it is answerable to society when accidents occurred.

The court was dealing with an appeal by the BMTC against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarding Rs. 4.24 lakhs as compensation to the wife of Antony Das.

Antony died in 2003 when he was hit by a bus while standing in a bus stand. The MACT had allowed a claim petition by Antony's wife, Antonyamma, and awarded compensation. The BMTC had appealed against the order.

Dismissing the appeal, a Division Bench comprising Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice Jawad Rahim took to task the BMTC for the accidents, and said, "it for the corporation to ensure that all its personnel responsible for the operation of the buses were made conscious about their responsibilities and necessary steps have to be taken by it in this regard".

It directed the BMTC to issue a circular to its personnel asking them to adhere to the provisions of the MV Act. If the employees did not comply with such directions, the corporation was duty-bound to initiate action against them.

Additional revenue

The State Government told the High Court that it was earning additional excise revenue of Rs. 6 crore a month in the Hubli-Dharwad region following the crackdown on a well-knit and well-coordinated gang of bootleggers who specialised in manufacturing, bottling and selling spurious liquor. The State alleged that the excise revenue in Hubli-Dharwad had gone up by Rs. 6 crore after the Hubli-Dharad police had arrested several members of a gang from Kamripet in Hubli who were brewing, bottling and selling spurious liquor. Appearing for the State, State Public Prosecutor (SPP) S. Dore Raju said the gang had assaulted excise and police officials and that it was engaged in operating a parallel excise economy in the region. The SPP argued against the release of Ramesh Madhusa Bhandange, who had filed an application before the High Court challenging his detention by the authorities under the Goonda Act. He claimed that Ramesh and others were selling cheap liquor under the brand names of well-known firms. He said persons consuming spurious liquor would face health problems, particularly kidney and liver ailments.

He urged the court to confirm the detention order. Kiran Jawali, who appeared for Ramesh, said the detention order was bad in the law and sought his client's release. A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Vishwanath Shetty and Justice N. Kumar confirmed the detention order.

Detention order set aside

A Division Bench comprising Justice P. Vishwanath Shetty and Justice N. Kumar set aside the detention order of Anil, alias Anu of Belgaum who was arrested on September 15, 2005 under the Goonda Act. The Bench found that though the report on Anu's detention was prepared on October 18, 2005, the letter to the State Government was sent only on November 7, 2005. There had been a delay of four days in sending the report to the Detention Board. The Bench cited a Supreme Court ruling and its own judgment in a previous case, saying that no delay should be brooked while sending detention orders.