1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAF=ZNA'FAI{A AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 21$: DAY OF' OCTOBER, 20981
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE L NARaYANAsvé[gM? H k
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALVN0.:1_'4¥§5f2_f)'0§"
Between:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co LTD
REZPTIZ) BY yrs DEPUTY MANAGER
MISSION ROAD -.
BANGALORE ~27 -- _ 5 ~
REPTD BY NEW IND§A ASSURAi\'2CE..C0'
Hm, CHZTRADURGA; ; " "
APPELLANT
(BY SR} R JAti§R}a';«;:ASé§ V
1 GANGA{}HARAF'PA».v'*
MAJQE V
' =3/0 '-QHIKKADYAMACHARI
R/ Q ,0 K f='!fi2A'§.{ELAGOTE
' =s::m'1f_1"<.A. D'zJ,_RGA..T_ "
Sm'
_ MAJGR
M z§E.K,HA "
_ "ME?§§O'R_.
.__ ".SI~i ASH£KALA
' '~3vz.11:\:<)R
" " BHARATHI
MEN OR
fi THIMMAPPA MAJOR
RESPQNDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE MINOR
REPTEII} BY END RESPONDENT
ALL ARE RESIDING NEAR STADIUM
RAJENDRA NAGARA
CHITRADURGA RE$I%5Nr§.ENTs _
(BY SR1 B L KUMAR FOR R243)
MFA FILED [3153 173(1) OF MV ACF:’»AGAIN§3’F”TI;i’EiV’;;!IjD3’i’zM’EI4AT
AND AWARD BA’i’ED:€)?fi1/22006 _;9AssE:3–A_i:=: Mv§:–“.%.NG.45?*;2e04V%?
ON ma FILE OF’ THE 11 ADDL. cmfL..%,1uI3L}Eg'{SR~,DN)”‘& ‘ADDLLV
MACT, CHITRADURGA, AWARQINV(:}.__ ‘vv..§:01ViPE:$:sAj”72oN OF
Rs.3,32,200/- WITH iN’r1_:RE$f;-@ –E3<3»a,..F5.A.,"»,_FRQM THE DATE OF'
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. T ' "
This appeal the Court today,
Court defivertgd _j — ‘
L’P1:£i¥s–V’fi}ed by the Insurance Company against the
.3 ;§.L:dgn1ei1f :)é.s:s¢é7i:i’M v C No.45?/2004 on the me of the 11
J udgc: (Sr.I)n.) and M A C ‘1’, at Chitradurga
{£i§£3.t€.ti 7’i’*}_/2006 awarding compensation of 3. sum of
: % “V5éLs~.~1é3′;k32_,3200/t.
” ‘ ” 2) The contention of the appellant in the appeal is that
figgligence 013 the part of the auto driver has not been considered
a”
3
by the Triiaunal. it is submitted that on 23/1/2004 when he
was traveiling in the auto towards Erajjenahattiw the
offending iorry” No.KA.16/B9 came from Holalkereiia
negligent manner and dashed the auto) AS’ 2»: :c;i1″AiVvex’1*’.ofb A’
the auto Sri Venkatesh died leaving the
legal representatives. The Insuranee. e’fefement of
objections and stated that not liable
to pay compensation View ofthe t_P*xefi:’Aii1;veii*e is eontxibmory
negligence on the” A “dri:éer. Therefore, the
apeellant shvoulci. 1Ii’ade’V:so1e1y responsible to pay
the eompenséatiorl. ‘ _ V
behalf ofV tfie”‘e1a;imants, PW~1 to PW-4 have been
1 Wife of the deceased and P’W–2 & PW-3
were trave_i1i11_g auto. P’W~4 was traveling in the offending
” -«¥;v::ié.i2e}eAA 1o1*1’y3vV§_A’}.’hey have also got marked EXLPI to P8. Ex.P1 is
spot mahazar and Ex.E3’3 is M V Report. 012
E}e:h.:zE.f appeiit-mt one Mr.Surya Prakash was examined as RW-
got marked EXRI to R8.
“3<
5
effort ta pmve the afléged negligence on the part of
driver by examizling the lorry drivar.
S. In the circumstances, I fmdz”-nci-.1:diyscfepaxigyw’
judgment and award passed by V iS
dismissed. The amount in. deposiuf-.be-. LA.trarismitt,<33c:1 to the
Tribuxial.
aE~:;d*