Kanakapura - Malavalii road, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with speed, went to the right side of the road against KSRTC bus bearing No.KA--o':,;Eg7o5.?"'~wh_:.¢h'~fw<as Q" coming in the opposite direction, resVu4ltin'gai,n an'1a.¢cid'e"n:tc,_in=;_it which he sustained the injuriesyl 'I.t__app'ear's, Vres'p'oé§d.eVnVts'§ 2 VA and 3 remained absent and exxviparte. Respondent 1/appellant Vhe"rei_n '«cgorj;te.ste'dvlA.ttie claim petition
denying all the co’ntentions’*rriade– petition. It
was also accident one
R.C.owner of the
offending policy in favour of one
T.Rama Reddy andtri.o’L..i:h—-_:taVyour of the 2″” respondent
Smt.l\i:;jKaiavathi”‘thedate of the alleged accident and
V’?_’contendend?th_at,._the accident was not due to the negligence
ol’r..th;e”‘driver of the lorry and that the petitioner
V was ‘t’ravell’i::g”‘ as an unauthorised passenger in a goods
Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.
_’_e._Al’terna’te contentions were also raised.
‘/
2. Considering the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal
raised 3 issues. During trial, petitioner deposed as i?’u’\!b.1
and examined Dr.Y.S. Shivakutnar as PW.2.
were marked in the evidence. For respondents’,.__no.rfre,was C
examined. However, insurance poAl’i’c’y«.waAs ,m_arkeci’-as
Ex.R.1. Considering the rival con’te__n»l:ions,
held that, on 24.3.2003, accide’n,t:”i:as taken’ p.la”c:eV«V’i:n’vlwhsich
petitioner sustained gr.i:t~:<\/'ous,<'i'nju'Vori*es"'n.glue 'to"~ra"sh and
negligent act on t'heV'partt.of~:§;|je Taking into
consideration n"o"n–pecuniary loss
sustained" for payment of
Rs.2,42,'Q0O_/A–Axwi–t.h«V.._iAin'€ebres;t-3-t 6% on Rs.2,32,ooo/– was
passed. CAgglrieved,'.:'the"«–.,:'1'5i respondent in the claim
_ petitigoh/iinsuran'ce_:VCompany has filed this appeal.
_Vl":3.ri..'vlG..,i$*iahesh, learned Counsel for appellant
w'ouVi'd._V;:Ao"nté~n.d thalt, Tribunal has grossly erred in fastening
V .liability on ti'.e; Insurance Company/appeilant, when it: was
pleaded that the injured/petitioner was a
ggpaasenger in goods vehicle in questionfind not under
to dispose of the matter on priority, keeping in View the
Case Flow Management Rules and at any event,
30.6.2010.
The amount in deposit is dire::ted”‘toé_b’.e r;ei5Linfieoi–.to
the appellant.
Ks}/–