-1-
ii 'T'iii: i-ii"" oe-"fir orr AT fiAi'I'u1u.u"' ' * -m
DATED nus mm 241'! DAY or MARCH 2008,
nmrom " it
me Horrnm IIR.JU8'I'-ICE n.s. pmiftno if '
Qrler-_ta1 Insurance Co: Ltr_L,
Chamarajpet, DO-10,
T}.n-611$ its Refiw Gfiree,
Leo Shopping Complex,' ~
#44145, Residency Road,' '
Bangalore -- 560 025, .
Rep. by its Assistant I
Sri.K.Jayaram; 0 =: A ' = APPELLANT
sn.K.M}'a{uisha'1a§pg§.;. 2
Aged about_45 years,f .-- "
S] o.K_.K.Madap'pa,V
No.{li5, 22.2"' BSK ii Sac,
* '*.;,$60 070--.----~--« = mnspounnzrrr
S131"?! Adv.)
is filed 11/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
V, against the Judgment and Award dated 10.11.2005 passed in
MVC M1400/2003 on the file of the IX Addl. Judge s--.
= d * Mefaber, M.A.(,'.'!'-'.7, Ct_n_Lrt of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCCH
" _ =.N'o..'.7.)', awarding compensation of Rs. 1,639,000] - with interest at
the rate of 6% pa. %m the date of *"...£L r°...._um°"'°°**..Ln.
This Appeai coming on for orders. day, the Court
delivered the following:
... 2 ...
1. This appeal is flied by the insurance fifffpany
challenging the judgment and award dated 10.
in MVC No. 1400/ 2003 by the MAC'l'.. Bangatoreg
2. On 13.09.2002 when the wee_at;tmng: to
Van be..rL!I.g 11.3gLE.|t.11l.tL0I_1 Item-o5 theta
nuugeuore on '.{an%p"..r-a
occurred when a JeepbeaIing'*'rr€§"ietr=3t'doné' 2 'M39
dashed against the ' thi Jlfeittejt to the impact. the
Section 16f.'of'tht;Mptorfi_§(ehicles Qttet filed by the elatm t
eccideht occurred due to the rash
and negligent. jeegzt by its driver. The owner of the
..ep B_!|.___ jeep were made party-respondents.
La
hi1′.n.eelt’ as PM}: 1. Exa._P1_ to P22 were
rm….£
I115.’-
.:’_
. pmduoed marked.
H “sf }h{‘eteeee’tvas framed before the Tribunal regarding the
j heghgence on the part of the driver of the Jeep.
.. Though complaint was lodged by the driver of the Jeep alleging
l’–t1.egll_ger;ce on the part of the claimant himself. the Tribunal by
V’ ” “misc nstruing the me-.te-L._l .9. record, partictflarly, the purport
as the evidence of the claiman’ t remain’ ed, based on the
complaint and the FIR, the negligence on the part ofthe Jeep
driver was found proved.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
——-l———J
–‘D
C mnnnv drawi 0 m, a.te1_1.1icn of to Q 7.
. 1. .-+ +i…+ 41…, -1~..m..gg…1
that the documents namely
registered established ‘outta; part of the
driver of the Jeep. the complaint was
in fact filed the-_~ alleging negligence
on the the Maruti Van.
Thexefcrenthel in misconstruing this
pieceV\ot.’ what is required to be noticed in
ngn
been is 111 T
l evidence in the’ fbrm of complaint by the
the evidence of the cla1man’ t namely the driver
Van. The accident has taken place in a place
* there was a curve near Udipalya and both vehicles
‘ hicoilided While taking turn. In the absence of any evidence
adduced by the claimant showing that the accident occurred
a mecca. cf the m-«”0-en we
‘:3
=>
3
the Jeep, the “i’r-ihnnal was rrt j”suueu in holding *…a. t..e
Jeep driver alone caused the accident. if the acciifint was
caused due to the gross negligence on the part ‘Jeep
driver alone, nothing’ prevented the claimzm tt A an
complaint at an earliest point of .
suggests that both the driver of Jeep it
MarI_.i Van {the claimant “;equa;il%*,k’
re-pa’-sihle fin’ the e..cefL.en..Ap_..!!’§’th;atppvLew”ef,_t1;e§matter, the
actionable negiigenceitdeserfives’ be; With. Uwn
it-;r_1.ce__ooj.; I am of the view’ that
both._the theidriver of the Marathi Van
are ekgnafly -» 50) in causing the accident. The
‘therefore ot’A’ihe”—appeflant-Insmance Company has to
bf}. §Iestr’icted”‘to 50% ‘-of the amount of compensation awarded
~1:I_.r:IJu’5 “-the ace- ..1..d interest,
r above modification of the impugned judgment
this appeal is partly allowed. The statutory
~ amount deposited before this Court shall be transferred to the
lriizrunal.
\fi
PKS
Sd_,/ –
Judge