1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 131?! DAY OF AUGUST V,
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUsT1(:EVMAN.;ULA"éH1r«ii;LL;R 1' R'
AND R * '
THE HON'BLE MRs.JUsTi<:E:B.v*.NAGA§AT}{:§A
MFA No.é§63 of
BETWEEN: _ R R" R
B.RADHAKRISHNAVI3£rzi:£iT
s/0 K.GOPALAi{RISHNA 'BafAT:"
AGED ABOUT36 YEARS j;
OCLEUNEMPLCEYED ._ '
R/A mo H.M,PUj9~!G'޴As,E
NAGARKARV COLONY, AIQHARWAR
_ .... ..APPELLANT
_ star VSIDDAKPPFT S SAJJAN FOR SR1 RAVI G SABHAHIT,
~ . 'Amr's.,,.) _
A , AM_i.s.AGHATGE 65 PATIL TRANSPORT
,. " COMPANY LIMITED, N0.-9
NEW MISSiON ROAD, BANGALORE
H = THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO.L'I'I).,
KOLHAPUR
MAHARASHTRA STATE
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
.... ..RESP()NDEN'I'S
(BY SRI C R RAVISHANKAR, ADV.,
SR1 L B MANNODDAR, ADV., FOR R-2}
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER sacrpiéw,
M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT Arm"A§;;fAI%'D,'_'I)ArIfED_ _
13.12.2002 PASSED IN MVC NQA.757[Ij9§5 CD15!'-TH!«3v..FiL:E .011».
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL J_UDGI«jg(SI3.I)N)' e5"IIDIjI!I'IQISII4IL
MACE', HUBLI DIsMIssI':%I.¢§'~--..fI*IIEA'"CI.A:IyI»v-.%PE.?rI'I'I0I~I FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL '§;QM1:<I§_QIIé. HEAIé'IN G THIS DAY,
MANJULA CHELLUR .3 FOLLOWING:
;DGMEN'r
apfieal against the judgment and order
tlié claim petition of the appeiiant on the ground
' was not able to establish that he was
" motor accident though actionable negligence
figs ofibnding vehicle was very much apparent.
2. So far as the accident in question, the
V' *»:.~d1:Itcntion of the respondent «insurer is, it is a hit and run
3
case but was made to look like a regular aeofieient by
implicating the vehicie i.e., truck CAM 1663
only in order to make wrongful gain.
perusal of the entire t3Vi<iC11OC of
called eye witnesses who is _e3<axnined..aS
certain xecoxris, did not enteefain tne
details regarding of eft'er"i 11vest:igat:io1:1
and what happenedépeo.' driver befoxe the
Criminal
' Motor Vehicle's Act is a social
Jegielafion, of the opinion that if the matter is
"back to the Tribunal, one more chance would be
». pwcn iippefiant to establish his case. No prejudice will
to the respondent -insurer in View of the fact that
on ; he also have an opportunity to cmss–examine the
V " 'witnesses.
4
4. With these observations, We allow thc.__appca1.
Accoxtiiagly, appeal is allowed. The judmcnt in
MVC No.75′? I 95 is set aside. The matter
to the Tribunal for flesh dispoaa1..ai’§cr ‘£9
both. the parties to had fizrthcr éyidggneé. “r_1’1e
dispose of the matter as as
iater than three moaths ‘bf of the
parties. Parties are’ U:?’=%I5P’¢4’~.i¥’ ba¢fom the Tribuxxal on
Sd/~*
Judge
Sd/’1
Ixzdqe