High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Hemanagouda vs Sri Basanagouda on 7 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Hemanagouda vs Sri Basanagouda on 7 August, 2009
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
was EIOWBLE mas. ausfrzw _§'_,_*:f§r%m4;s;z2% _ ;g ?m1~;*§k   7 n

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARRATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT BEARWAD V. 

xtmcrmzz THIS Tim 7111 ms: or AUGU$"i'§"2j{3}{('5'9

BEFORE

m-'A 1'i'().21}.58.":1«,{__2 --§ Oi:8 1 "

BETWEEH:

SRI.HEMANAC§Q§IDz'&?f3i AND.TRAIi,§3R vkgggmziqé

2§_x*'§? 3.935,
VRESI1?)EN?£?,_QF»_"f§;Afi'APiIR;

:vVTAL{}i{1§.: _Is§IJ1*€._,DfP..EA 3:).

am: %<::zs:}m}}V   ~ _
'~ * H.<;-%=%~* &PPELLfiRT

(B35 ';."}»R_§.I-£;.3.')i<,«?§VgA%i~;?}hZ'3* Q;-ciéiammmagaagm, ABV.)

'Oi

' Siziggaiéafiageigm rvzgawavaym PATEL,

AGE'; #38 YEARS, Qcxc; 9091,32,
.E§i»f}«--Hfi§'I'AP{§R,

1' . yaw Kym' TIRENAGAR?

€31,-Q §*}f{}BL-E, EESBLE,

1  mm': miafiwgg.

Sm'. &.I{£{z*§MMA
W,i{"} BAsA:*4AGc:mA PATEL,
AGE: 49 YEARS,



ta.)

GCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT TIPIINAGAR,

OLD HUBL1, HUBLI,

DIST: DHARWAD.

'THIS MFA IS FILED L173 11231 (1} )__&ADI"}L. MACT,
I-IUBLI, AWARDIESIG A  »v.._CQMPENS}}.TI€§N 01:'
RS.1,50,000/- wrm IN'I'E§'RE_8'T.. 6% RA. mom THE
DATE 01? ?E'I'ITION ':'*::..,., {)E1?C:S1T,'j  "  M

. THIS APPEAL c:;4:me:s'%%<3:~é:% ;  ORDERS THIS
mug', THE :;:%::;:.;§;?*";* DEL.{\fE:REIfi -'FHE} §'OLLOWING:

f7¥JH§GMhHT

"t§:1ere' is a delay of 65 days; in filing
the 3.i3'IjC'¢'f;_1' {V I*£2_v§*E:V   the: Iearzled Counsel for the



    appeal is fiied by the awner of Eha

H   the judgment and award }Z)£:'£$S6d ii":

 Mire {@590/2004 0:1 77.03 by MAST, Hubii.

 The rsievant: facts of the case are that ans

"~,_Sh:'*'ikantg0u§a wag pmeeeding in 9. 21'actQr-trai1er

%



beamg E'~E@.E{A 26;'T~198§, 1986 b£:13nging;E'a9 {ha

I'€Sp{}}f}d€§£T£¥, on 18.8.:2,GQ:3 at 3.13011: 

Geiagerimath on Eioriikappattagudda r§)g;ii;..::.   

vahicie Was; 1168!' QQnikappat £agz:fid a;._ the» .__"s;€a;.aj313e"'$,1?éLs

drivan 1:1 rash and me ii 613%: I:";a§.*;23:1:éj:I mad é:é§.§é;'1'é$V::.1ét"€i§é::~V
3 3 , . . T. . L

vehicle teppiad mad Shrikéiziggouda Viciisfii T #911 Egcdfiunz sf

grievczus irgiuries. C:f3riten<'i£z1;gVAt1'3g.i: f;h€y 30$'; fzhsia" 3911 in
the said acciéfizm, 12i;§_ }3s;I'éjf1t:s3 3!;E_13§' ~T._'i1;Li*1»:: claim pstifian
seeking confipéfiiizsatiég.  '"'    " 

 4. 'A *Ej.)*:f; s5una§ framed the f0}}owi:1g three issues fm' $13

" c:o3:1$:id6:*at;':31'x. Tha Same read at; fafiaws:

51

M _
/,4' /



a. Whathar the petitmxafirs prove: 

18.8.2383 at about 19 am. 

Q0121-Kappatgufi mad naarf   V' ' '=~

vane}: tha de$€:as1"1'_ z2t;ic¥ 

26/ 198§«86 as:'c::g;11e%&:ve:::; pargi; ?.r;21;§Vt<i3 rsgszgf =

and negligant    '§'%E3€€d, the
driver 1cs:§t..V_Acon§.i1*€)iA the Aééhiéie am} it
toppleq  51j,f;':*;=s_.:'i},_3 iv  "due to this
Shzikantagouria 3:ii.§d_   "Sinai?
b.   entitisd far the
   s }:'},: what ameunt arid frem
 """   _ 
s11a33'{ herein iiifi mat Eét-in mg? evifiences

 éf maiafiai an raeerd, {he tribama}. avsarzfiaé

 c$m}:»¢ f:;Sa:tien sf Rfie 1,.§$,GGG/u with inierfigiz (.3 6% part

A ' . '  frem {he date of claim petitiern {iii éepogii.

%»



Chaflengng the judwxent afid award, this apjfieal is

filed.

7'. The learned C0L't.1"1se} far 

submits that in the instant case tlxfit' {Jf izlfié'. 

deceased at fhfi f}}'St instance-«, hati A. 'preferzfii 

before the Workman C3?n:i1pe13sa{iQ1:. _   

therefore this c};aim__ peti'{i<}_£1VVV:i5;;__ 1101  He
also submits that this,   an account of
Izegligent of the deceased:iézzjfii-.i§l1§:réfG:fé; the appellant is

not 1'33:_spQ11$i'ZE;;i:e«~3;t5'sa£i._%§:(§,z_ 1116 award and that this is a fit
saga f0f"é3;n;€:'fe'r€fi§;e iffis appeal.

   Eifieard the ieazned Caunsel far the

.A  ppa§9fi.r}'£.é;€1d on perrusai cf tha materiai on record, it is

H 'fiiif i'i1' &.ii--is';:'i:st;e that tha acaiéant had {3ccurrad on

a§< :0;J1'§§;.'§f the dsceased fafiing from the traiier,

 .. x1:f3;<~:.&;*efGi:'e the 1136 of 1:315 Vehicle is not in dispute. As far

 a@s 1:he other cozztention cf tbs appellant is czmcerrzeé,

V V aithmzgh writt€:1 statement had bvefin filed no evicfience





was let: in to substantiate the fact that $116 £i,ecc:ase<:i

dieti on acceurzt of his ow}: 111is1:ake. N0 matezjiai is

placed on record to Show that the paréiiirs _

deceased had aiso filed ihfi clagm pet;%aie§i:j~.}§éfV{0reV tjiea 

Labour Ceurt, Hubli and ease Zigefcréz

In the absence of any exdémagze  the  *

sigrlificaxatly, in the abs¢;ic§:_ -.;}f them béing any
insurance poiicy in msgpeizt Qi'; in question, the

trihunai had no 0pf_i'013- W  mL¢;: iiabmty on the

appe§;1fifit"*e3.%V5.;;)1é;§i%1g;:':'*:§}ia.ndf E3,1é1<?e__b€%gi:1

contra evidence placed on' rgcoxfi'  the " L.

sigxiificaxatiy in the absentgé'  '  iéxalid and
effmtive ixxsurance   is"s;21<:1y liable
to satisfy the aware}.   to observe
that si:1c:§3:_   the I'f3S§)0I}d€I1t
bafoxiéf the' : b§ :.a::~c%::I1c1uded and compexlsaticzn
of Rs.   awarded with interést @ 6%

peg"; 5512311111, V"i;1_ a¥11y islaim peiitian that may have 13%;":

  .§y..V:11€: respondents. bfifflffi the Labour Officar

lggi.-.i£1ii:s»i’§i’_’v_a_1’1€§”ii: {:16 event {if any award bemg mafia an

tiié’ Cléina petition, ‘WGUIC1 1201: have to be satssfiaé. by

V. “§h<.=:_.afi§:&l§an!:.y

IL Learned Coungei far the appefiant iastiy

'V —$u.bmi£ted that no apportunity was given for ietting in

934

any evidemce of the appeilant in the instant casé ‘–3.§:I721’}e

he has brought to my notice the order ‘_ Zthtfi

proceeding before the tribunal. On

sheet, it is found that an

examined but the appe1}a;n%;’s4W.$Cu11se1:,.”.;v’;isA’ aE3$e:ii;

Despite: giving sufiiciezait op§<'3;*i*;11z'1ity;"'Créséz-examixxatien

of PW~1 was taken of Vfihexciaimants
was conciuded. On ivifaurt posted the

Case to fjor' "i'e€;i3t§11c?e;fi1t's evidence" i.e.,

, appaliant or his
counéégléu afid therefore, the evidfince was

takfzrit as Tléfi was {I161} posted to 08.01.2008

" V. an that day also, the z:l;aima11t's

Vés::1i:1.'~:€{éf:».A. ":€:as_1~~ heard and naatter was pasted to

}@234.,_€32,_'.ZC*'£§§3TiG hear the respondent i.e., the appeflant:

A§:[eLr&.i.:z1..– 1 G11 18.92.2068, appe11ant's 4301111333 was absent.

«' irébunai has recorded that despitfi sufficient

% = – riéppartunity beixxg gvezz 110 steps has been taken by the

appailanfls counsel and arguments on his side was

9%

taken as 313,}. Thereafter, the matter was pasied on

17xa2o0s andiimxeafifiritis posux1on_?;a2§§§{:§x;

pamsal of the above dates it is clear that

did not cr<:.:ss–exan1i.x1e the c}a;imaI_§t's;, '§1€iV§ I'1€1'4'€&52%§.§iI1:y'

evidence let in from the siVde_4of _3:LppeBzguitAahd 1i¥;2i£Ir1ef" ,

was any argumeyat addresséLd.,_V ' It is that the
matter was posted -£_,2§I')f3.'%? an fiafious dates
up ta 7.7.2008' izhat is jvvzfionths £11116 was

' given ta not utilized. It

is Whoily u;1jiiS"L — ééppeiiarat to now
<::Qr:te11d thaf'-rfé given by the trilbtxnal.
Hence, §:§1e_$_aid £§é3r; t<::ntiof£'visV'iiajected.

_ §«'_:§1§th;c5"'a¥_:)ove reasans, the appeal is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE