%% 7 % % : v7?f:L
% 1 ~
,
_. " J.
' nun --
r"I'l""'
E4.»
Pel_i.lit_\:;er N9. 4 ».-..fi.- Mime"
Represented by the
Nalurui Guardian Mother I _
Petitioner No.1 5 t '
Ali the peiiiiunersare _ V
Resident ofNidwuncha " "
Bidar Taluk and District APETTTIONERS
(By Shri. chanamshewp paauLe.Aavuem;
AND: 1 L A
I. The
Natio:15.el11:§;a1griag11e-e. if A " ..
t
fir. Jawaiitfiompiex 3., _
Super-Markeifj-».'L"t = .
Gulixtrge 585 " 1" ~
2. Santosh Kumar'
5 '':S/o__MahadeVappa.. «
. Puli-es Pati!
T' "Re'side:ite_fIfIouse
_ :t1--2r7t%s9/1213
' ._ Ragheveedre Nileye.
lo
-. Iv'i'..v;'_€~. Iviedicei Coiiege
,, " Sunder Nagar
= Gutbarga -- 535 101 RESPONDENTS
A. M. Venkalesh, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and
Respondent No. 2 — Served)
1’l’IOI! ‘ ‘ uni: 1 1’
aluu II’lII- .1» VII JIII-ill I.I Au:-0’00 ‘ fir,’
Chittts Ttibuttsl sod Print.=i,o_s! ‘Jsdtge,–st’ Bifistfles ‘I. A.
No. 1 in M. v. c. No. 32/2005, . –
‘ – vein’
“T
This Writ Petition on
“B” Group this day, the Court made the foliewitig: – V;
The uttmasg.t..m§’t¢xse prgiiminury Hesrin (B
M
eite!i.fnslt$nees.”~.._’ %
2. Vhitais vthe oi’..iJie petitioners that the husband of the
‘~ A with 8. motor aoeident whereby he had
and was hospitalised. It is also their that
pefifisner flied a claim petition .’before the Motor Aeeidenls
Tribunal (hereinafler refemed to as the ‘MACT’ fur
…Ebrevi’ly)). Bidsr in MVC No. 82/2006 -and -during the pendeney
T _ % j .:.’-3′ No es
the Constitution of Inda praying to quash’ fits’ order slated
31.10.2007 passed by the -Ieurned7iPti»neip.a_-i “Met1’Jr’ A1:eidenls”» ”
.–.i.E,-L .
‘ (N.-‘IIIU,’u1 NIH: Hi.-Ill
Luv ufinlu wan uu sum
as :1 all-. Inuu nn new:-aual er] a
accident and hence, they were prosecute. ” ”
petition claiming higher compensation
husband of the first petitioner uitirn£tte_ly~ this}-‘result of it
the motor accident. T”
npplication– oi’-» auU”””ii.ii’ij§
to come on record as the iileguin of the deceased
petitioner threshold, the
3. “hm.-gh its order has in its discretion,
held facts and circumstances, it could
not; _i’l.l1e petitioners would have any claim:
..I.I …………._.. l
zu I awuu , 3
point of time much after. the -accident and that
therefore there can be no presumption ylvas.-a nexus
in the Almere
‘ fpietuiing before the court–wouici not enough that
i the death had on account or injuries sullivred in the.
accident.
3
4.1; was the privilege of the petitionere’ initiate ~ on
contention that the cause of death twee
m e…e..-is_IheL_l as
_ result of the accident. V’ri’.’tierei’t,n°e’, cl.’ the .:’ib-and
thongh- cannot be fuultetl, petitioners would
also have to g the same, it is
-applupriafi. the Tribunal with a
to estahiish iheir ‘diet
the as a- direct result of the injuries
i.. he-. on this ground the petitioners would be
» te on record.
A. Anncxune H is quashed. The matter is reifiitted ii} fiae
“WOT with a direction to the Tribunal to provide an
i -.:pp:..\i’i.-.t.-I.-it_\,r to the petitioners to establish their that they are
g T
_ pcgfiliungrs he.all_o_\§vml to hmsuqulh-jibe.
av? .. 1