High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shankreppa @ Dodda … vs Shri Maruti on 9 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shankreppa @ Dodda … vs Shri Maruti on 9 July, 2009
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 9*" DAY or: JULY, 2969, 'f,    

BEFORE»,  

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE HR, DAGAMDHAQ 

m_§cE:.LAN§Du§ FIRST AP§?EAL ND.?§44g,_m;:z:D:::_8'D'i'M'J)
BETVV EN' W V,  , % 
SR1 SHANKAREPPA @ DDDDA S'H_A?5i§Q5{F'<§§P'f5A»_
s/o SHIVARAYAPPA ¥~iOOLI- ~ D D 

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, <::(:t:::$J'1ag"  .  D
R/O INAM GOVANAi§QPPA=._SHIRASAi$£G§ V, 

TALUK sAun:,DAT*:1,k D257 5[ELDAuM. :PETIT'£ONER
(av sax. 3AGADxsaDv.:$A97m,,%AD,v.D'")

AND 

 . _§;+~a §%.IE"'?9iAfiilTT, S,'"§m'§'AL£.APPA KU RI

A  AfiEfi,MA_3»QR,_ oc<::A<;R:cuL"ruRe AND
. susIvss:E«ss,.a;sD ANEGUNDI TQ RAMDURG
uD1s'r DELMUM

 % :2, T§§§.,C3RiEDETAL INSURANCE co LTD

A BRANCH OFFICE, MERCHANT CO~--OP BLDG.,
 A BAILHGNAL DIST EELGAUM THROUGH THE

 "D.I¥.5ISIDNAL OFFICE, THE ORIENTAL INS CO

]L'T'§., DIVISIOANL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR

__7Si-¥ANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD

BELGAUM. IRESPONDENTS

H {By Sri.: H M Di-IARIGOND ADV. FOR R1 &

Sri. K.L.PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2)

71; \;\;x,

THIS APPEAL 1s FILED unoen sermon i?3(.z%}vAVo#i’;«}:li-y;

ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND Awngo oAT£ole1i’.o4..2ioo3 : ‘
PASSED IN zvs.v.<:. ~o.22o2/zoos on '!';'l~i.'-E'f'FI«LE_E oi: TH'E«.i.C11''_VIL '
JUDGE(SR.DN)., SAUNDATTI, D1S§4ISSIN_G"–THE .PE"}'I'TE():N.

FOR COMPENSATION.

“ens APPEAL conxnoiron Follzlk’Ao%;~%ll:1es1oN THIS om’, THE
coom omvsaeo THE FOLLQ’WIt3.c75::” L ”

Appeilant against the respondents
under Section” .166» :.t:heVVjMotor Vehicles Act cialrning

cornpensfation in of a motor accident. Under the

Tribunal dismissed the claim petition

filee mainly on the ground that there is

1″Viinconsifiencyg’ ‘inA«:’~”:9nentioning_the vehicle number in the claim

“*’l.5i.potit*lon[Leno-else the documents. But however, the Tribunal fin

V’*fj_,Blithe”Voperetlve portion of its order, reserved liberty to the

“e.V%a’:pv,oel¥.a§nt to file a fresh petition against the owner and insurer of

V”Aflthelvehicie No.KA-24/E-1638. With this observation, the Tribunal

it “has protected the interests of the appellant. I find no justifiable

T-xi

3

ground to interfere with the impugned judgment

It is for the agpeliants to take advantage of

made by the Tribunai under the

with the above observatioh,”‘t1}e atppeal

of.

e 1UDGE

sac*