Byit&:_NIa_3aag:é1'_j..___ ...AppeI1ant
V 1-,. Meena,
XV)'-9 Late 'flflagarajaxz.
' PW/<3 Late P.'I'.Ya}1appa1'1.
IN THE mm-: com? 01? KARNATAKA AT aANGAz.oI-:E
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY or FEBRUARY zmgj'
PRESENT n k A.
"ms I~ION"BLE MR.JI:s'm::E
{THE HGWBLE m.:a*..3Us'1*:'t:EVV ;?3'._ANAxV
MISC.FIRS'l' APPE§L;«--No;AV29=i§Vi;f24V(§07(Et!VlVV VA
cgw" .
MISC.F'IRS'I' APPEAIg...liIo;33 11/ zoosewrcz
BETWEEN: V VV V
New India Ass11,I;*ah-Vet'. - ..._ _
No.345, 11F:gor, Ma:iat:di'T}Q.mgm,.
Jayanagar, 31%. Bi9ck;V. ' V' '
Bangalore» 560011. _
83/ .i V' . -
1DVVivisior£di~Manager, ' ---------- ~ 'V
N:-:w,h'1dia Assurance Cio.Ltd.,
Vi1V1ay"'Cd112.1§vE+::;?:,.. Variiviias Road,
gay ;:;i«: omahesh, Adv.)
V Sundarama},
Both R/A Kaveriwt Village,
Raddiyur Post, Tirupatur 'I'q.,
' Veflom Dist., Tarnihiadu.
T at "a;ii"i11volved in the accident
ceunsei for eiaimarlts. We have been taken through
evidence and the impugned award.
4. "}L'he eiaimants have adduced oral. "..
d<}cumenta1'y evidence to prove that on 9.6.2064
the deceased was; riding his scooter:-bea;ring"__No;.."
V-4.103 en Bangalore Hester Reg;,§A'~
Yadavanahalli Check Po$t~~..at e same Car
bearing Raga.No.TN-05»:t§;3}%7é'e'V'%t by fret
respondent " against
scooter and which resulted
inhis deaiifit-ttt V’ V»
5. counsel for Insurance
Company’ has xefiietti on EMV report to contend
fifeiit ;i6rt.it):i;_of sceeter was damaged and there was
1″}(}i portion of the car therefore, case
%*%’tt%tput mm; b5;f”c§eifi1ants that car bearing No.’I’N~–O5—MB-
H deekied the scooter from its behind is faise. It is
“~s;§11;it1itteci by the learned counsel that car was not
i”
.5
1′
4
N Q.’
(>7
not inveived in the accident. In the first iI]f()I”II1a¥1iOI1__
lodged within few hours (if the accident. the registratie::t”L:’–.e:..
of the ear involved in the accident is IIif3§1ti0D€t3.’..”T11f3V:}.”
respondent is a resident of Banashériit-rni”..A IIIVV.”
Bangalore. The Insurance ztietii’i;.{idt1.c*eéfl”~..
evidence to prove that Car of I :*ee’poncie11t We.$_: it
involved. In the judgxneijfi madeiinii cc
943/O4 it is not heicitilat
was not invelveci contention
of the Insurance: Iiieespondent was
not at all be accepted.
9. In fiéieeer held that the deceased
ciieé due to driver of the Car hearing
by LI %%%% tespondent and reject MFA
izieurance Company’.
i{§’;’—- oral and deeumentary evidence
_:”add.L:1e_.::i byclainiants, the deceased was working as a
itqierator in M/s.APW Resident Systems Ltd.,
‘T Attifieie, Bangalore. The deeeaeeé was aged about 30
at the time of accident. He was drawirig a salary ef
Rs.6’?”7’8/– per month. Apart from producing the salary
IV c:t~.~<£'k~-D""'0{'9" '
8
shall be transmitted to the Tribunal ferthwitlé to enab1&___
the Ciaimants to withfiraw the same. MFA 2931
dismissed. d 9, .’ Z
-Sd/*
sk/ –