' 1éaj:am~; Sajai, Cliéfifiai (Madras).
IN THE H:c;H coum QF KARNA'I'AKa AT BAN§Eg§L §f}RE
mazea the 16m day 9:' April 2009 I A'
:BEFORE: '"*"%
THE 1'~;::>:~»:'BLE M;R,J'USTIi3-E::A~'»'n}AC¥§;ifi§Z§E}3§§1§fi231§Ti'.V é A
MISCELLANEOUS Irms*:* APPEAL I;.. 9; 1 1. /=2;i;ofi .j:LI'.4fs';;«<::;'3
BE'i'WE?EN' :
Sri Shivalingaiah, _ =
S/0 Maxflingaiah, Agvcsiiflé gzfiars, " _
Kaliugopaily, Bidadi Hobii', '
Ramanagara Tegluk, _ j. V»
Bangaiere R1_1mi_V Disfijictf
. . Appellant
( 33? fef 'I'.P.SriI21'vasa,
%%%% dvocatm
A N 92; 1. A
The M 3:711':-.=-,<:ii'v.::I'V,' '
'I'ir;I3{aliaVar 'I'ra;1sp0rt Corporation Ltd,
. . Respondent
( /3 BPDS Associates, Advacams. )
Mjécalmneeus Fimt Appeal filed under Secfion
:~ " of the M.V.Act against the jud§"I1€I1§. ané award
dam 5.9.2005 passed in we N9. 983/1994 on the 31¢
' ms the Pr}. Ciivil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mammy, Add}. It5,A'C.'Z£'.,
RaI21anagara, €1iSII}i$$i§1g the claim petitian for
egmpensatian.
This appeal coming on for hearing this dejzg the
court delivered the foflawing :
J U D G M E N T
Heard both sides in respeét of
by tht: ciaimanf; £1gé1i1}S?Zf£ZI}’f3 d«iSI1ii3Vsa1
petition by the M.A.€3.T.
2. The leamad c01§:LS:§.§I argued that
the trial c0grr; V\§*as the claim
petitien V.-ciaimam: having not
giacexjp §;1i”_”‘:*e:Tsfpect of that: tmaiznent
taken :55; Therefore, {ha submission
111ad ;=: 1:’l?:’¢s~ttV_’1.:<:}*3,<%-1:'1 t;_£"1<:t=é"'Elaimant has prodzlcad ihe FER
'~ .:wa3;.z11dV"VCé:'°'i;i§.{:a:e, Eh»: 'I'riIr:s:_ma}. maid not E13136
~fh~:: petiticn marely because of Cfiftéiill
aegis: w.fii_1' 11:} the hospitai rsscerds am C0}Z"1C)€I'I1€Ci.
K T56 abova submissien of {Jim appeiiaztzfis CO1}.I1$€l
LE1§aé:'=":1ot been sariausijgz quesfimned by tha ieagmed
u Eiatizzsel fer the respozident ané, tharefare, I am 0f the
view that {$165 znatifir requiras remand £3 fiifi Tribtmai far
f:'é;:;%1 €::0i':$ié§:'zt:;:is3.1";. As Susi}, E 1*€f1'a:i;z1 from ma§<:1?31gf any
%
,5