1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 24*" DAY OF JULY 200B_"YI'*7Ijjf"~.. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JuSTIcEv'J'Avv'AD ITAHIIYI" IN M.F.A NO. 3332/20o5(wc)_& M.E;AfN.D.33é'3Y,Z200~5(IA}"cj:T" &M.F.A. NO.333'éE-Y_[.2OO5'(WC) IN M.I--".A NO. 3332/20G$f.WC}_."8L"MI.F:,A;'EdQ.3333'i2'0I)5(WC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH NEW INDIA A;S'S:'IRANI:E LTD'---.' ' BIJAPUR A A .. BY ITS REG'IO.N:A;L OF'ffEI--C'E.,_ UNITY BuILDING».ANVN'E%xE.,% _ * MISSIONROAD; 1' A BANGALC)RE_ ' T ._ _ I REP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANACIER APPELLANT (COMMON) _1. SMT. PIKOEABAI WIFE. OE DEVAJU RATHOD ..A(3ED".'kBOUT 55 YEARS ;[SHESLJBAI, 'D/0 BANAMANT RATHOD ~ -VAGED ABOUT 10 YEARS OKQ» T») 3. SUNIBA1, D/O HANAMANT RATHOD AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 4. RAJU, S/O HANAMANT RATHOD AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS 5. SANJU S/O HANAEVIANT RATHOD AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 BEINCSE A O
MINORS REPRESENTED BY .THE’£R ” _
GRAND MOTHER 19″ RESPONDE3″\iTV_
ALL RESIDING AT
R/O. HADGAL1,_L.T.N’O..2g–.V g ,
BUAPUR TA.LEL~J.g<:& DIvI:STR1'C.ZT.._ – ~
6. SRI. SHAM ‘ ~-
S/O KRISHNA TATE; ,.
R/O ~OHATNO;EwA;O1,
KAR7AD_TALU.%{,.O_ _ _
SATARA 4DI’STF<~.ICT.= A 3
U " RESPONDENTS
rO- 2',*¢ (COMMON)
IN M4:.'F;'!\__NO. 3334/2OOS(WC)
SR-AN:H.",r»1A~NAGER,
NEW'IND1AfjASSURANCE CO. LTD.
BIJ'A..PuR"
BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
_ UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
_ ‘TMISSION ROAO,
=5.A»NGALORE
(BY SR1. SUDARSHAN, ADV.)
R;EP.B\’ ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
A APPELLANT
(%Qz/
9
that the other contents had to be proved by the insurance
company and the respondents. The occurrence ofpthe
accident itself was questioned and hence the
held that when both the sides relied
without any reservation, both are bound,’by”‘–its_Co.nteo,ts
its entirety. No portion can be’ a_ilowe”d_t’o be dispute’d oince
the document is accepted. case, the
contents of the FIR ibAe’:’n.gr»..v_iAqtiestioned by the
claimants. Besides, are based on
the is not a party
to the reipolrted the occurrence of
the aC:%zide’n’_’t’ as the employee
of one Mlenongrlliha:t”$tatement is not attributable to
the’stat_emeni:~ made byvthe claimants. It is a statement
Viigivgen about the accident. It is registered
by7.jthAe”‘3u~«:,iZsd.Aii”cvti’onal police for investigation and thus falls
within of Section 154 of CRPC. It can be used to
it contradict or corroborate the statement of ‘giver’. Such a
“.do*ctiment does not bind a third person. Be that as it may,
it ” *’the insurance company did not summon the author of the
alt”
E1
grounds urged do not make out a case for interference
with the impugned awards. Hence, the appeaVi§’e’.._§’i=e
rejected. The Awards under question are affirmed.
di<b*/GH