Sri Sidda vs The Bajaj Allianz General … on 2 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

 

DATED Tms THE 21*» DAY or SEPTEMBER'... .

BEFORE

THE HoN'BL:=; MR. JUSTICE ~MI'r   

WRIT PETITION No.10600 OF 2510' rC;M '--'.-.'(':;  

Between:  _

Sn. S1dda

S/0. Marxgowda.

Aged about 24 years, V 
R/ of Maratikyathana I"-IaH_1',j' '
Jayapura I-Iobli,   :
Mysore Taluk & District.   ' 2 '-

 '  3' ' * _  ' :.«..'.Pet1t1oner

[By Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah arid Ni.B."Ry--aE;11a, Advocates)

AND:

1. The Bajaj A11ia;;1z_Gen'e;:a}.,.,_ -- '
Insurance Co, '1..~td..,   ' 
No.363, .._Shree Harshza. Complex,
Rama V11as_a Road,  
Mysore. V ,  V'
Represented b'y-its

 *  , Branch. Manager. """ ' 

  

~.D /Q. R.' fjwaigakanath,
Aged about 32 years,
R/"0. No. 45/A,
Ra11way';.Quarters.

 V x Ma11andavad1 Road,
 VMLysQre.

  .l{_R§: 8: R--2-- Served]

....Resp0nder1ts



application, I.A.No.6 under Section 151 of the Qivil
Procedure Code to recall PW} for the purpose.«jof'j'«re'=~VVA4
examination. It appears, the said  *
rejected on the same day, ie. 221%" ll
the matter was set down for further
member of the Tribunal has of"'PWl
for the purpose of re--ex.ainination_;';1Xggriexred"by~the said
order, petitioner is before   

2. Leariiedplcouinsell the petitioner
submits  by the second
responzdedntpd  was rejected earlier.
He further"  without there being any

application '4to.,Vre--open the case and re--examine PW1,

 the'"}'ribunal.could"'not have permitted such a request.

  dllfjilhave perused the impugned order.

App'aren'tly,n.:*'it is to be noticed that it is a summary trial.

 .vp'.""17hVrere is "an ambiguity as to how actually the accident

  has"happened. The second respondent proposed to

it “clarify the said ambiguity. Hence, the Tribunal ha%

%