Anand @ Neelakant vs Mysore Minerals Ltd on 6 August, 2008

IN THE IIIGH COURT.flF_KARfiA'F.;$KK"    "

CIRCUIT   

DATED THIS 'I'm:'_6:1_g. nfi ..OF m.;us&r zilgsii 1.
HONBLE   I'»L_e;1§mI;A CIELLUR

HoN'fii;E. 1\4Rf3I;;s'1'i;(:I«i' K;NiKES}i£AVANARAYANA

i:LLA1*;EeL is  No.s2s3:2oo3m

BEiwi:EN: i   "  ii

Anand  

, S?/0 Vasudevraa  Neaiakantrao Deshpande,
 - yam-S,  '
»  * -. Qcr;;Civfi_(?or_;tractor & Supervisor,
"  Rfo.,_B1%ga3I<ot,I*3agalkot Dist. .. APPELLANT

A  Rangareji & Ravindra, Advs)

ii *   Mysore Minerals Lick,

By its Chief Administrative Officeg
No.39, M.G.Road,Bangalore.56000i.

2. The National Insurance Co.Lt(L,
By its Divisional Manager,Be1gaum. .. RESPONDENTS

(Sri R.S.Siddhapurkar,Adv for R-1)
(By Lex Plexure, Adv for R-2)

(W.

 



and dashed against the motorcycle. As a rest;lt,_V:VVE:eij'*si3stained

multiple grievous injuries and iinrnediatelfijlhe  

Government Hospital, Bagalkotattd   

Dr G.S.Kulkarni's hospital atl'Mii1"a'ilV_A.  as it

inpatient.

4. The dl*iyer,oWiietihe  ofthe Tata sumo
vehicle were  to 3. The petition as
against;    sumo vehicle came to

be  'efmitlie:.:1:1e1no filed on behalf of the

peiitieafgsy.  2 lass Veontested the petition. During the

h'.iz1--I,'« the elaiijeanta-teetitiener examined himself as PW-1 and

_ _  two "ivitnesses i.e. PWs 2 & 3. On behalf of

  "Ne';2, its Senior Manager who was stated to be

hi hi' --  the Tata sumo vehicle at the time of the acident was

 as RWI and the driver of Tata Sumo was also

Z esmnined as RW2.

5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
the Tribunal by the judgement under appeal, held that both the

claimant and the driver of the Tata sumo were equally

@



 , a  regresented through their learned Counsels.

ii  ' A i" could be seen fiom thejudgement under appeal,

responsible for the cause ofaccicfl_e11t._f%:ilie   

the claimant was guilty of   to 

of 50%. Having regard to  lo-fl  by ilie
appellant, the Tribunal lassesgeaiithelbompensazion
payable under magi heaclsfatii "Rs;3,;':k5;25o/., in view of the
corrtributorynegligenceieoifl  'appellant, passed an
award.'   'V  i  payable with

 "ll-.iei_daie of petition an the date of

6. Being   and awand,
both op. _tl1e  of  negligence and on the
quan11xii1=ofi'§clairnant appellant has presented
  -    

7. ofnotice of this appeal, the contesting

_ = heard both sides.

the’l’i~il”»unal for recording a finding on the question of actionable

negligence has taken notice of the fact that the police after

a

afibcting his functienal ability, the by the

Tribunal under various heads, in is East.’ died

reasonabie and there are noscopg f{_?r j

under any of the heads.’ , r

12. In this ‘the; no merit in this
appeal. Amordkigiy, thfé no order as H)

sal-

Iudqe

sdl 1.

‘judge