IE! 1 -
EN "rm: HIGH comm" 01%' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT' GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 28"" DAY OF s19:m_'1«:MBER, 2910
]E3}}3P'ORE '
"mp: HoN'B'1_.E: MR.,JUSTICE V.JAGANN;tg1'zriA¢§§..J: if _
M.F.A.No.10023 OI-r2007 j:_ 1
BETWEEN .' ' M 'V
AYYAPPA S/O HANU'MAN'I'HA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
OCC:AGRICUI.'FURIS'1'
R/O MADLAPURA
TALUK AND DIST RAECHUR
V ; , V. ...APPELL NT
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R MATH; 'AD.Vj}
1. 1\/i£)I»L-'x1\«I1x«IE'r;='EQUNUS -. '
S/O 1VI'D.S'HAEK__SHAVAi.LI"
OWNER -0? ILORRY 36-6565
R/OF H-;NO.12}-_1 ::~.{2,9"'
;'1.'ALPHA'oi», .RAECHL'R
N}2\<1f1ONA1.'i'i§3AsURANCE
{By SREM's:;DHARsI--I.AN. ADV. FOR
" ~ _ V CQMIJANY LIMETEZD
NQ";:3_7; T'fHR.UV1KA}N'DI. ES'I'ATE
'-._(}OI'NDY4i2}{), M.G.ROAD
r2A1_rT:Hi--1.RTR.}3:PREsI3N'1'ED
mt] 1'11--:; '§V{AE\fAGI3',R
RESPONDENTS
* SRE N KI{?SITAI.NASWAMY. ADV. FOR R2}
'I'I""}IS MFA IS FELED {E/S 173{E.} OF MV ACT A(}AENS'F 'I'I*iE3
" " "'«.'3UEf)( }MECN'I' ANT) AX-'JARI3 EI)A'I'E§D: 3().11.2()(){S PASSEI) IN EVIVC NO.
ego
208/2006 ON Ti-iii FILE OF 'II'I"{E PRESIDING 01*" F ICER. FAST TRACK
COURTAIII. MEMBER. MAUI'. RAICHUR. DISMLSSING THE?) CLAIM
PE'l'lTi()N FOR COMPI;3i\5SATiON.
This appeal is coming on for hearing this day,Vi.-he Court
delivered the following: 2 "
JUDGMENT
Irfeard both sides in respect of the
the clairnarit. This appeal is by th.eLthe’*
Tribunal being aggrieved .»b’y___.thel§’
petition for enhancement of 1lC:on1p_ensatioln.’ by} the MACT
Raichur.
:2; of learned counsel Sri.
Basavaraj appellant argued that the l\/{ACT
has the petition on the ground that, the
of’.t,h–eA moltorllllitjrcle was responsible for the accident.
of the lorry bearing i\io.KA/3643565.
heweiier in the course of evidence of PW-1 deposed
that other case in MVC No.22/2003 the liability put
“..oi1».the Insurance Company, after holding that the driver
= ….drove the lorry in rash and I1egl_igent marmer. tllerefore in
gt»;
_ /
A3-
the present case the eiairn petition eouid have been
i’\
dismissed by the ‘I’ribuna1.
3. Having regard to the above s*a1b_:i1’issie.:j »1’m42ide
and the appella.nt’s Counsel aiso i11(*1ie:a.t,i’I”;g’~..:thatV”the°–.._
evidence of PW–1 has stated vL»’as”*–
disposed of by putting liability on Vél1eV’Insu.r’a’i1ee_v Coilnphaniyj;
‘bhis matter requires be remain-d {Q theTr_ibur{aI for fresh
consideration.
4. F01′.»the abevefreas0nsA°the.{appeal is aliowed.
The j1:i’dMg”fn”ei/it e1; :TribL1ha_i”dated 80.11.2006 passed in
aside and the matter stands
remand to “”i’tjiVbup’a1 ‘{0f”‘fresh consideration within a period
.– V. _ Qf”it–ha1’e.r:*’.me;’1t.hsVffefiiv the date of receipt of this order.
35/4
EUDGE