Karnataka High Court asks BBMP to inform citizens about compensation for damage due to poor street conditions

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to give wide publicity to the rights of a citizen for seeking compensation from the state or its agencies, if people suffer injuries or damage due to the poor condition of the streets, potholes or footpaths.

A division bench issued this direction during the hearing of the PIL petition filed in 2015 by Vijayan Menon and three others from Koramangala, seeking directions to the BBMP to maintain streets and its failure to repair large stretches of roads, which are constantly affected by potholes. On the last date of hearing, the court issued the direction.

ALSO READ: Moonwalk creates waves, BBMP gets wake-up call

“We hope and trust that the BBMP will consider and award a reasonable compensation to citizens who are injured in accidents caused due to poor condition of the street or footpath. If a reasonable compensation is not paid, the affected person can always adopt proper remedies, including the public law remedy”, it said.

The court had also directed the BBMP to immediately set up a grievance redressal mechanism for enabling citizens to lodge complaints by letters, using mobile application to upload photographs, or by accessing the official website of the BBMP.

With these directions, the court adjourned the hearing to September 24, 2019, for compliance of the several directions issued by it on July 31, 2019 with regard to the maintenance of roads and footpaths.

HC disposes PIL questioning law on helmets

The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed a PIL, questioning the rule of compulsorily wearing helmets, saying that it was against public interest.

The division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz disposed the petition filed by K Jagannatha Shetty, a practicing advocate from Mangaluru, questioning the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act which made wearing helmets compulsory.

The petitioner has asked the court to issue directions to the state government to frame rules in order to not make helmets mandatory. 

The petitioner claimed that he had a right to live according to his choice and conscience guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

In particular, to use two-wheelers according to his wish, with or without a helmet.