MESCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAV£.'€*»l':§V3;153£§3'--.C}'F B 1 ._ "f'.§"?IS"F«flAFéAGEVR» cxo. acts i~=::Hn<:sELL.LANT (av sm-,_ ;=_;xTz~::: ~::<5R£G_,_ 'w;3,a,'--,r;:;§;ca;:;eTTE) MGHAN EINGH, MAJCR' V. .. sxa, PRATMAPTSINGH ; »~ V sax. BALAJI, "MOTQR SERVICE BEUMEUMBA, KYATHASANDRA POST mM':<UR TALUK AND.t:_._}_I__$1RICT ;:.c."a9Aa_, T%}f\'!t_:d'éangarahnapelya. when the .reaei;'ed..A*-riearz'Ktiififafahwanahaili Cross, a vehicle bearing by its Driver, came from opposite av.'r§':1:v'?.§h;:;-and negligent manner and dashed against in wiiiich the ciaimant was traveiiing. Due to the said fishe ciaimant suffered grieveus injuries. 'me Bus in it the ciaimant was traveiiing is insured with the ...Irespendent no.2, whereas the vehicle, which caused the faccident, beiongs to respandent no.3. -3- 3. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negiigent driving of vehicie bearing no.CT)( 9999. However, in the operative portion of the judgme-at*~lii}¢'V, Tribunal held that respendent no.2 -- insurer bearing ne.KA-06-5553 and respondent: r:c..1A- aiie
jointiy iiabie. Advocate for the insurer ;fiivec}.’,Aa’:§ ae’pl_i%ca’tiohi’-i.
cerrectien of the judgment, i’etve’r:eiiaA'”etalti;§g’.. Athet*vV”the
accident is due to the rash. ‘arse rieeg_1VVlig.erst_,LAdrl\.kii1g…of}}ehicle
bearing no.CT)(-9999 and the:”Trii:iilfé–aAi Sélrrengiy held the
insurer is liable ‘payithe ce.mpenSatiVch.
4. Thisi’i’aV_ctis tc!.ee’*i?A’frehh’:LV’tlie complaint as per Ex.P.2 –
FIR, Ex.Pf3~~:.Ca’§ew-Esheet. Felice have registered a case
tglalnsthtgewe of theiivehicie bearing no.c.Tx-9999 and
chergeshVeet.t”ije..vval§e.:i*iled against him. It is not the case of
xvtiwe claiimVantjthia’tAthere was negligence en the part ef the
‘pf ttieifius in which he was travelling and it is the
of the claimant that the accident occurred clue
. ‘V:.Vte.’:the§rash and negligent driving of the opposite vehicle. The
:’c:”Ts?iVbunai has not modified the judament or reviewed its
ii
it
KM
-4-
judgment except cerrmting the judgment in terms of the
pleadings and also in terms of admitted facts.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted thett_’he
Tribunal has no power to modify the judgmer:t._
opénien, it does not amount to medifying the it’
Tribunal has corrected the factual
in the operative portion of the jutl«.;:_ment;<–._'i'find err§;lr"'l
in the order of the Tribunal. I find 'hi'a:.reason'te_ ihterfeilte irliith
the impugned judgment andLe.wardh'.'\\"' all
Accordingly appeal dismi$'$ed;'V._VV
Sd/-r
Iudge