High Court Karnataka High Court

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs C R Krishnappa on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance … vs C R Krishnappa on 19 November, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi


-4-

5. Learned counsei appearing for the claimant submitted

that, the accident is reportcd to the police statrion. The police

mgstemd the case as per Ex.P1-FIR. Spa? mahazar axldw

hand skatch was prepared by the polixre. A charge shegfgis.’ A’

based on the investtigation. He aiso relied on the £31″ 3

driver and pointed out that, the driver Xgas _

acccmzat of his negligent dfiving, the a.(;cide£1$.Aiy’s*».caussc’d; .

011 mm evidence he subméttsd that, “‘fi§e.T1~i12u1:$1″‘c§$xz§i¢;:§§?ii1g
the evidence on record has givésga ._the Said éiéhicle
is invelved in the accident. He claimant

being an Advocate :b3:~:AA:fg:_:~ofe’.é;Asio;:b3: h more than
Rs.15,000/-. 1 5..

6. He re:1’icd” cfn’ to point out that, the
injury is caused _ t;im pzfbccss also Lumbar Pazaspiua}.
13311-$cfl121arv»»:;5pa$i1z suhmitterd that, on account of

thefig i:1jt1z’i¢s fiactuxe, claimant is not in a position to

git f<31:' tivrivc the Vehicle. He has incurred huge
the trcatrncnt. He submittcci that, claimant
d¢;L_.'§he p;'ofession cfliactively as he was doing earlier an
"Eh: pain and furtlzzer submitted that, though the

in§§¢me7is stated at 9315,0001», Trihunai has taken only

{EV

. VKA

uaocideiit to incur cerhain amount toward the

in such cinzumstances, thc disabiiity is

i ,t}__:1e of asst-zgsing loss of future income, in my
'zaigéng the income of the claimant at 1937,0001» p.m.,
not; appears to be mareasonable or exorbitant. I find there

ii" 36.? mason to interfere with the gudgment and awazti of the

-5-
7*’. In St} far as involvement of the vehicle insured with
the insurer is concerned, FIR, hand sketch, mahazar and the
police report cicarly indicates that, his vehicle is involved in
accident. Further, the police an investigafion have ”
charga slmet. The driver of the offending vehicle T H
admitted the accident and the invohramenf itixsfiv

is prima facis matszial to hold thapthe dfirgndifig @1915

involved am the accident, 1 fii1d,…t11€I’§2~”iéV:.-fzilfiiVVI’f”§aS0iIl”‘t{3=.i33$ifi3I’f6I’C
with the said finding only becaiisféii is raised by
the learned counsel for \. ”

8. As ‘ énvaxded by the
Tribunal, it isViv;1at.Aii1’iiii§p3q.3c is Advocate Thy
profession. ihe doctor indicates that,
there is spinai fracture. These injuries
uhave on his profession he may not

efi’éc1ésié1y’« ..cio §i1é..Vp1f6fe$sion as he was canying on prior to the

-5-

Accordingly, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tfibunal.

Iudge _