Loading...

M/S Bajaj Allianz vs Sri T Subramani on 2 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Bajaj Allianz vs Sri T Subramani on 2 April, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Ill THE HIGH COURT OF JIPLRNHTMIFL, RANGPLLORI
DATED 'H-I18 '1'!!! 2!!!! DAY 03' APRIL 2000

333033

11-13 I-IOWHLI ran. ausncn   

nu n In. :15 n: ':nn1I!r.'~.|_a,Ar'\_  L.

--n-:...1--nmn

ms iim: iihifilifi  % V
GENKML INSUIIRNCI C0. fi'!'.D'*~

no 31.? n 3 wanna  

um: nzssmu man   
HEN! BANGALORE 8'fl53._K 

'§'?>f1'§*iiis1onAL      

51:1 9' sunanmm; _ 
NJ\'2._5!:« . '   1- '
SID ran.-1*: -rt-13.11'-.a§va:mJ'% 
nmr 269% '~'z'4II* A '

n c A co:-stung". %
5:-5:amt-:a_r:u._I:.IL 2 1,2:-z-;:ug:; on

_--- ---._..«

~i;J:.ac:9n w1;anan:.aw-a

  

u.-1 

. 

I we sx:i’;’s?’nAr:Hmnu
“WET iii) .– ~13. iii?! fiififii
mmm nlnnv Lawnm-

%_ A nonarc mmmmnz
‘ ‘”3_§\llGALOR.l-43
nnrouullws

3:-1 A nmnaam, Amt. Iron 1:1,

g3- gnmnnx

XII’ 11 f

THIS 3.! IILIII UNDER ARTICLIS 226 MID 22′? 0!’
‘PH! CONSTITUTION O!’ INDIA ‘I’D OUBSH THIS OKDIR

TJ .11.ii.?l7fi7, Ffifiiifi Ff Til? (‘3I’iun’r vi’ 1
B C ‘I

u — -u -v-w’–..-_

I I.-

‘U..aE $33 .”!E’.!’9′.% $192!’?! $11.!!! ‘1’R_1,nuuni_».

nmsanons N n.v.c.no.1’mo1 ma: mu-3 Axum-t:..

Heard the counuz. tor t:’iiiba:._”;aa;-ti§’sQ t

2. nuponaant: Amen. Kélain
patiticn baton the .A’§g.§ga1on in
IIJI. C. no. 111/Of! ‘ g on account
of the %§u§éa:.§ea mm in a road
tratric jiicaeaéérifid “ea 711. 10. 2006. The
et_:gid;»::f;$:~v~__;:u % the t.ra1.I.’1.c police in

can fies semis

iaccagdi-fig’ the 1” respondent. hl has

1:§__l:’a’;§_ T. at zoning and Lady cm:-son

I-I<:a.'5;1i,;9'.*;fi1._ $;!§iq|J.oro. The gotitionor-insurance

'c.::.ga:$3v=. £i.iod an application Iaoiou the ecu:-1:

.v__iPzsthcr" gum» the 1* zosponuioni: his

regard to the injuries sustained by him in tbs

accidsnt on 11.10.2006. Though summons was issued

on tho casualty lisdicll orficsr, tho

use not produced. Thsrsturs, the |_.1st:it'.:l.o__n;:'s'::=«' A'

casualty Hedi-cal ..£..iee: £9: said.'
the aifi"ir'5i1'I'fi rigitir, fiir.-h ' .. -"fi1ieaf::.ér. i
rajoctsd by tin Tribunal. This' 9:66: is «-::_V'£'311<i¢':' if:

qussticm in this writv :2gj:it:La":'s…

-I. 1 hsvs hssrd ths..§auussj. $129.1′.-“b*§IV:’j2.«;raV”p.n.rtiss.

5. lam; 1I_:1~.,s_ uisputing the
accidamt amd_ fths 1″ respondent
in the .. the 1″‘ rsspondsnt has

come to t’1’w:’t:»::u’1:-‘i:V”.t:hst he was trusted at

_VBawrig1gg”‘e1:d Viittussaoria Hospital. Bangalore. 1:

ugh V” zssvistsg is produced borers the

if

‘ :”L§ijas;i§ns in tho accident: and was treated in the
i hospital. on 11.3.2006. admittedly, the
Laccidsnt rogistsr has to be tuintainsd 1

I:-was-nlunt Hospital. 1:’ such accident rsgistsr is

/

6/

not produced bntoro tho court, in apito qr
summons inautd Hy tn: court. it in tho duty at

the caurt to iaaun warrant against tho conco;fié&
utxicoz. whoa auch rvgiatux would go to t§i~:@fi§?J”u

of ant case, the Tribunal should _n§t ‘h§§§”

gejegtgg the ;p9;;e;t;9n

rheretcre, the writ getitiea has : “aé ai§,;§§a ”

6. In the result, tfi§a_wx;t §a§1E1§fi is

allouud. The nrdor ‘fi§§s§flj ¢y”*;h§”.Tz1huna1 in

rejecting tha _agp11¢g§ign go z 1é§n§ warrant

ggginat caauait§3 Hnfi1ca15;O££i§i:Q: Barring and

Laéy cLrzen5″_a9ite1 Lgteé ;1=12;2oo1 ;g has…
qaaah=a.’WThe ?éiaua§1: is ¢i:eete¢ :9 issue

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information