High Court Karnataka High Court

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Mr Sheak Farooq on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Mr Sheak Farooq on 30 November, 2010
Author: L.Narayana Swamy


1
:11 Tim PEGH CCXIRT OF KAREATAICA AT BAZHGALQRE
DATED THIS Tim 30:!» my 01%’ HGVE1kmER mm
BEFORE A %’

TEE HGFBLE h!£R.JU$TI
, 1:,

&

R’A’1’IOHAL msurmncs _L’1’D.;_
MARDYA BRAHCH, A
‘rI~moUGH rrs EGIONAL OFFKIE,
30.144, F
M.:s.Rmn,
REP BY rrs
Sm.D. . & 77

(BY an: 3.9. RAG, ADV.)

3s\A.’%%J§é(Fe;3rwAKFA% %%%% .

AGED 31 YEARS,

” 8i¢3;*’*!;e$R.8}_-.?:EAK AMER mm,
x gzsmme AT xavauzt,

HGBLI, I<.R.m'r mwx,
Iasmgmra msmxcr,

& & L :2;.sR1;. s.R.'rmEsH,

= §<sIA-JOR, 3:0 Ramamrsmimawna,

R10 1-Iaamvmaz-IALL1,

macmaau mm',

smxnnamm HGBLI. 14.3.92? 'music,
gamma mgmm'.

Rzmxngxfisis

(BY SR1 mu, Emu aasmzams mg cm:
m «s sgmrgm

cs L.Ar«wr

THIS man. Is FILED UNDER sacmm Nazi; 01?
W ACT, seams? TI-IE JUDGEMEET AHn,:;wAm
mmn 2935.200? mssm) mt MW.) HC}.15!.’£€¥3§”V;~fi3

um FILE or THE pnssmmc; amcma%%
wnmonm. DISTRICT JUDGE. MACT,
mum-V, mamas, AWA%H€(_3:..A.{30!e§I”E’i%’*8s;Y1TQ¥€ <3? * '

Ra.1,60,9m}- WITH m*r2REs*1éA'r RA;
mm or wxrmon TILL REALISATZGR. 1

THIS M.F'.A. '

= r

'rm appeal 5 – Imurame
Company award damd

29;6§20::r7 "Ho.15,'2006 on the me of
the Bistrict Judge, mm,

V. Mysorva.

J. impugned mall and award, the
gantnad mmpemafimz of 1?s.1,6{),95{)f~«

wfihififmutat 6%pa’ammfi~omt;hedate of peztifion

3% ‘fig .. ®1_;,$g1 far tfi §p t «-

aubmtma that fig aérém eftm

veh.ir:.1aa rwkuafinn Ha.KA-115′?3§

12 ?I’:{ts ”

3

wag mat. in %maioa of the Ewe as ca at

the acufiamt. The aeciclesrxt firfi on
about 9.30 am. imaolvizg ttm ~

1%’ 1:r’a.&u:1 Hu.KA~11«5739 W d%;w.

@1gm1oe on the part of Iigis. “


imuranca 30%     vehicle as
on tb date    Qaf fin objection
statm;    mapondmt had
my gfl _ . [ _ V .

he the rupondem: had us

‘ :1 from 14-(5/2005

V. fiftlm aacflezxt.

mrthaet submiw that the amllant –

haa chosen ‘5 aamm’ mm
% magma-aaveomaa. rim:

his evidence he has indium that am as:

‘ -“impondmt as on the dam of tin mfiant was not

mvfiq a m& m éritm the

which ma as sunk the kitzram aamaw % net. iiable

fiapaythecompmaation. I-Iwee,fi£as1;zbm@to
amwthhsgl. . ‘ T »T

appellant — Imuranee Company.

abamt.

lmmad. ea-umel, I and
wward panad the of law that

no . dfi ‘ the vah1c’ is on the public

to we an vehicle who in in

‘ Ikaense. Form N.3 has been
~. $95′ 9% Par Ex:.i’-“9 and the kmezme’ was

mi.zea¢§:+;s;2eo5, up tn valid dat:-.2 on 1311212005,

V’ tn say ass cm the ante of the mfldmt, the

cf the ofimdim vehicle was not in poas&aion of

“” :..I 1%!’

ti»: 1% respement have produeeé aw damimm as

4

5. In vim: af :13;