Sri Syed Aleem vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 10 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Syed Aleem vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 10 November, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And K.N.Keshavanarayana
V-__ 7 - ...mn.-unm-n ruun LUUKI U!' l£AKNA'l'AK.A HfGH COURT QF XARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAICA HIGH COUR

V. mmanv. ma may

mm; HIGH comma: or Kamfmm, " 

mama mm Ti-IE lam my 013* HaV;3$§§£'5$EIi'_.'~2xbé9  

ms: Hszxzmm Mg..Juér:£:12;"H.x;ir:;§}m,<. " 

»m~:« _   é
my H€)I%"BLE EP;.q£J$£jI£3Ei{;§§Lm8H2a*JAr&fi1§AYAln9;

 

 

1.

3239 ALEbBE,?1; ~ _ _
sfG.SYEI§¥ amen ‘ . V’
28YE£.R$g=, H V ‘-

Rf.AT.’§’G’.5§li5 1 1m.asxa;-

:5? smG3.1m-%c;wm%yA
mums GARBEK, ~ _
aaxemamaacoaa. .. apmmmw

at sx: “‘~ GEJWBA, am. 3012 sm

_R.B§SAI};§g%EiAPF£, Amt) V

1.%§z9v.a}tw. §€33né éaasfsvmca co.::m.,
REG€3P§iK£i; PFFt2’GE err

‘ ~U1¢*rrsrI«..II…m:=.=.n., ”

léfifififi” Q 4’

.f . , .3fi.H{Ҥa&I$RE ggz.
” *

T;BJ{}QRAVAHIfi’AGAR mar,
‘ ~.E31i’GALfiRE –~ 563 cm. I! RE$PC}fi’Bm’I’$

E? 3% G.fi&EAYAK.’§ 21%), 33?. F132. E4 531} 8% G.V.I”.

A
:

– av: I uuunl ur l\.Hl([\l£|ll-\|\I-\ HEUI1 LUUKI UP’ KAKNAIAKA HIGH CCU!

flflflflk

mm mm. Is 1711.3}; tI{S.I.’?3(1) or my acfif Vmfi»

mew? mm AWARE m’;’£_’3.I.2.,’?i11;’§é6$–:’_’;v?é§.%E§ ‘-_I§” _
mvc.xo.sa;aaea cm’ was m.E:;’o§*%_f:£:g”‘yE.:A’A,Dz:z.girgn»¢§E,

‘ nmmm, mcr~v, cam’: 91? gwm,
AREA, BANGALGRE BCCHV’:_Ii’£?..5), swag”

pmmtm ma ccn¢mrm’z:afi;

THIS ma ce m:4’G fag.’ V}’FQ:: “a3ame mm my,
x.N.xmm vamxamxa mg mLL:::ma»a-


:_v V.  . V

 

on the:  _'    sf Smfi Cause,

aamazm-e my», _fm.’ dkm : am 1%’ 2 and
award 7:13 the aafici chm’

main am the claim mtmn

A 155 af the Mamr Veh§z§aa Act mam

3? 33.5 mm fer tbs pawns} mam
lawn sustaizwti by him in the mm wrsmse
stated ta have scczxrrw at ahmzt ‘2’ pan. an
mama rm: mm Fem-cl Bunk,

3,. Amdjrg to the amllant, an tglfw

accident, has was an his

beam Ragwa.KA.-15-s-42f;:ao ‘mi-a:%%&%

arfi W’h81’.l he appa-cached:
by the seoater bearing by is
ridw it: a rash the tram
direction, as__a am! sustamv.-ad
griewus am that he was
immediately when he was
gismz ‘ he was a1%d fin
Mallya mpiml, mm as fixpafimt am

vizzspihysjjiaf. hm aufiarm t

…..n – uuufll ur Isa!-:NA’l’AKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CCU!

_.- -.–v

.’ ‘ Eiml p-ei;i&n was rwhtmi by tbs imam

infsr afia on the gamma that tm mid

4’ mt mm m ma awident and mt -cm

as a rider sf the zmrmr cycie £511 dawn an

-flaeaurxt of that swam of ms am mama flue ms
3 ” su;ddmapp13r’@afbr%n3at:aid asu”a3rd;.ogma:::mm

(3

‘rt!-I1l\lfi mun uuunl ur muumnunnn !’l£GH COURT OF KARNATAXA HIGH cou:

the read and thwefarm, tha appelhnt is net ”

any mmpfiation from the Emma? 3f the ‘ T

5. The Tribunal :21:

docuwtanr evfim,

that the claimant has no
ooaurred as a rank cf cycfie
and the scanner. tn the
dacuwtary cf the F.I.R. at
Ex.P.1 arm the
appellant mister eycke. on amirg
a atray h%, as 3, rmult, lm
V”I’iia:?t5f¢rc:, um Tribunai new that

“»f.=;n:h’t1ed fir any wmpexmtiwn fiem

agf Bfi

whfle mczordim the Fmdizg an tm iwua
rwdfi ‘ acfianabla nmlm’ rm has nat Wm. ‘mic
S iszxnsiderafiszn the wnmmm 9f the mpg; sf clmm slrmt

5}?

mm by me poliacse agaiznst the may 01′

beibre the tn-ixninal Court plmded

which he was esnwctw a am t{m *’I§’>i’.’:s§L1r1alV Txm

committafi an ermr in V.

6. {Ipon afil, the
rmpondamt No.1- im learfi

*2′, We . ” ‘E . éaunael appw.r1tg’
on both V

S. the appe1m1t ‘velwsmenfly

has failed to mmidw ‘(hm

xmrd rmmljr, copy 0f the eharge

_,_g}:w¢ t’ that film mm’ af the semtar wkm was

– by the paiiae ha. mg af the 33-
guilty befem rm mm ‘ Ifieufi,

. ……….. mun -..umu ur munnunm I-mar: LUURI 02- MKNAEAM HIGH cuuxl U!’ KAi{NA¥’AK.A HIGH CDUR

%% 9. on the 6mm” 2mm, harm acrunsel fer the

— respoxniem R13}. wught in jusflfy the
.. 5,)

…n..-nun mun nuuuru Ur§l\Ai{NAI’AKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUI

6

judgmmt mm by me ‘Tribunal and my
irzherm-erase in cafifi fin’ fifim 1:153 ‘ % ‘ 1 V’

13. As cmuld be seen ”

charge swat mm by ttxe’ £h:::__

hwrim Rag:1.Ho.cA§-75Q.aé§g 1:92: the
ufleme pmxiahabh 333 rm and
Secticm mxwevm-, 1:1»
TribunaI!.- on Ex.P.4~ to reject
the mpy of the cawlaint

mag berm” éghé rwgaeet of ms accident in

qmwtinn could be awn fiem tm
c»mmm;%%erA§;x.pj.4, immumxy am-
jm syaa Ejaj has met with at:

. mm: P%tre1Bt.1n.k and an enquiry,

– ‘Emmi the chiwm while ‘

aflm mm a attay deg, mama’ rely
brmk, as a result, he fieli dawn and mmsma.
to ma had me: that the injured was sigma as
rmpimz ma wmmaasaaexy he went m Sindhi

f’

Hoapitai ‘smears he war the ingfixzmd but the ”

not in a position to sfik and the:-w% ‘ V

aimed to Manya Hoapital. 1:

wmwsirlt lodged by Syed

and afiar ixzmttagazazm, be} mad.
Frau: the mpg: :21″ the wt
fercrmnam as tx:__hsow an-, poiica
cm in km was mm’-

sx; the not omm ta
mm.m11m’ _’Eja_iVWa.u. no haw he saw
ta know abo«.::_ in ma eempxaint,
has gigs)” mt eye wimws tn the allwfi
to nurse that the chknmt

has am madam magmas mm smdm
ad my Iy he mm mm’ * * mmmmzg If

….u~ur-nan ruun \.uUKl U!’ RAKNAIAKA HIGH CQURI OF’ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Uf’ KARNATAKA HIGH (SOUR

%m~mm fi*-am simizi Hsspitai ma Izem

mm’ had to the: meta: fix swam Haapital. In

ahwezm nfthm rna%1′ dwumm and wfie’ m,

in am aansidccncd apinisn, tbc Tsibuml is j’us1::ififi in

-. ….1….w-..nnn rman uuuru Ur RAKNAIAKA FIIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CCU!

8

placing reliance an Ex.P.4, ‘mm mm fact
fimd the charge aim: summtnmb

tha smoner in questfian azmi

baium me mam: Cotuft,
to coma in the eamlxxsion’
in the aecfiumt. eonuwlizmd
by the ‘mama peman am
against swam’. In fnw af

thefact man; the any mm

and j 3% whim

coon:-radon the gag of cm

mm Tribuzml gig jusfi’1ed hrs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *