IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN<3AL£):I«':E:' A ~
BETWEEN :
.1.2,VV.LMA¥uI2A?,'- '
c0MPLEX,KaAD:B 1v_xAjI:¢ ROAR-_V '
PEENYA A ' = "
BANGA '
' ._ ..APPELLAN'r
(By sri. --SWAMY, ADV. )
Sm 1»4U*1':~§%fA1.A§:KA
w-:o;. NAGARAJA @ NAGAPPA
Sf NAGARAJA @ NAGAPPA
N "SHAH KARAPPA
BALARAJU @ BALAJI
S] C). NAGARAJA @ NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL R I O. BYGARAPALLI
MADAI-(ASiRA TALUK
M.F.A.N0.112§5?]'12i3Df7:'é%§{i.'\l1'~, , "
ANANTHAPUR DIST.
5. '1' MEHABOOB PASHA
S/C}. SULATHAN KHAN
MAJOR, M.F'. ROAD,
HINDUPUR, A.P.
(By Sri. DAVANAM V SATYANV RAYA.N,*A_DV. - . 2
FOR R1 T0 R3) »
MFA FiLED U/s.x73(1)' A014 A{éA1N3'r3n~1E
JUDGMENT 65 AWARD,DA*1iEI3--.":3j":*,(20o*/'ms:§ED IN
MVC NO.945/96 ON *rI§i'E% CIVIL JUDGE
(SD) 85 JMFC &r.AADE}L .m;pr'IUG;i?;., -AWARDING A
COMPENSAT}.O'N_ _0F iN'l'ERES'}' @
6% RA. ' " " "
T;-i1's§ AEFEAEQ ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, Tasgopm f3aELi§?§}RED THE FOLLOWING :
, ., ,.;J...Ij' D G M E N T
1 company which is the appellant
by the liability being fastened on
ta it tribunal while allowing the claim petition
A "IL-' by the respondents I to 4.
2. Learned counsel for the apgsellant
insurance: an-mpany submitted that the policy in
question which is prwuced at Ex.R1 and the permit
%
Ex.R2 makes it clear that the vehicle involved in the
accident is a goods vehicle and the deceased
as a passenger in the said vehicle and as__Si1eh,— _
liability arises on the part of t11epAHi;t1s1u’a_nee.i u
to satisfy the award amount.
referred to the avermeI1t’dV_i’n_V.. the’-..cd1a.im
para.2 and also to the ex}1=5o also
confirms that the was a goods
vehicle and t1;ei”efore~ entitled to
any company and
the passed on to the insured
i.e. the ow_;11e::f of _the vehicle.
‘ None for the zespondents. I have
of this case and I find sufiioient
force fiideddeubmission made by the lwmed counsel
for d1e:appeflant7 in View of the document produced
dd’–V_i1m;r:1e1y the policy EXRI and permit Ex.R2 and in
do Veddifion, in the éziaixa petition itself at paraxz it has
been averred that the deceased on was a
passenger in the vehicle in question. These being the
%
undisputed facts of this case and the witness of f;he
msmance company being examined as RW-,3;
deposing to the efiect that the vehicle in
a goods vehicle which does of ‘A V’
passengers and the said cvidenee 3.1:.
EIILR1, insurance policy “of
RW~1 aiso not beingoesteatsdsdddsséficuslyd cross
examination, on thedflu put on the
insurance cannot be
Helios; ‘me and the award of
the tribunal oi1- liability on the appellant
sside ‘and itdvisdddfhe bmden of the insured to
‘ dd” _refui1’d_ed jm ddappeflant.
The amount in deposit be
sal-3
Sudge