IN1IHEHHHiCOURT(HVKARNATAKA.
CHRCUTFBENCHJXFGULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER; ~ H
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE'
M.F.A. No.1o345_oF " ' F' .
BETWEEN
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE (:30. L'1'tD,..; I
BRANCH;I3IJAPUR,REP.*I3YJf f '
REGIONAL OFFICE, N.O".2'é'B; '
UNITY BUILDI'NC--;.ANN:I~:X;
MISSION RQAD, BA;;_\TGAI_,_O~RE---"m 7560 SS7,
BY ITS DUIX C,_O;NS'1"'I'I'UTED"ATTQRNEY. ...APPELLANT
[BY SRIC A-DV.,}
AND V
1. NEELAKANI'AYi{A,
f S " ~AG1::I)' ABOUT 54 YEARS.
S/'O _SE2'...E RUDRAYYA HIREMATH.
'OCIC. CQQI;IF;;_R~/O KANNUR,
TAIJSK &'IjIS'I?R1c'1" BIJAPUR.
-- 2. SR1 IVIAHADEV,
"S/O DUDEHAL, AGE MAJOR,
* _pm/ATE SERVICE.
'mo MANAGULL AGAS1. BIJAPU. ...RESPONDENTS
fl’ _(B’3K CHETANA ASSOCIATES FOR R1)
I’\.’.I
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SEICTION 173(1) OF
I\/IV ACT AGAINST THE JUDG}VIEN’F AND AWARD
DATED 6.1.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.”792/2003″ ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE} (SR. DN.)fAND
CJM, MEMBER. MACTWVI, BIJAPUR, AVVARD’I’l\§:(3-._”A
COMPENSATION OF’ RS.1,O7,16O/W WITH lN’HE-RESf_F’.j’-1?)
6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF PETI’;’£’ONCyV”T=IL.L~-O O-
REALISATI ON.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE F>OL’LOw1_’NO: _ ~ *
JUDGM§1¥i ‘ T’ d ”
This appeal is by tch_e.lVV:A’s;’€ewr_.L’ I11di’a-.._As:§urance
Company Limited put on it by
the tribunal while alloxfgkihlg’ cetltloli filed by the
first reépcradent Ve:’laltna’1’1t§ ‘ ., ‘
2. the appellant counsel Sri
_ M S11_§:larshan arethat: the accident did not occurred On
the chargesheef: reveals that the date
Secondly, I10 copy Of the
-V policy ;v’a.;~, hplcodutted before the tribunal. but the xerox
V’ f<..rOpy'–._prOduced, which does not disclose the vehicle
1'1t;§mbcrf\v21s :;ak<§¥i into ac:cO1.:11t. by the l\/{ACT in p1;1.uii;1g
E"
liability on the appeilant. Unless the original policy is
produced indicating the vehicle number in tciievpoliiey,
liability could not have been put on the e1ppe}i__2i’i’i’t;’
3. Learneci counsel for the 1’esponc1e.t1’ii”ela:inia.nton ‘*
the other hand submitted that
accident has been 1’nent.ic’ne–d__ the –. ”
chargesheet yet. the HR the ‘effect that the
accident occ1,1r1’ed on fact is further
confirmed by the panciiaiiaiina document
also I’€V€a}$«”ft]fiT??::t’I1€”e1C_¢i’d;¢I1t’ on 13.8.2002.
Therefore in the chargesheet will not
make it ‘case ‘tot = Vaecident having occurred on
but other hand. the matezriai piaced
byiithe .cia_iin@ant establishes that accident: occurred on
m.s;.:».oo2;ii *
light of the above submission ptltforward
iai” as date of accident. is concerned, in Vi€\V of FIR
o1eiit’ior’1ii1g it as 13.8.2002 and said document also
,2’
55¢:
beg s1.1pport.ed by the panehanama drawn as per
EX.P.2. which document. also eonfirrns the
accident. 13.8.2002. There is force in the *
made by the learned counsel for the>’e.I.aim.’ant.V’that V
ehargesheet. date was shown by ltfnisltafke
instead of 13.8.2002.
5. As far as liability is eo_n:(‘:erned, l.ea1f1fi_eci_e,ou11se1
for the appellant. is ‘juslt.ifle.d linVivseiell{inf:gllremand because
the photocopy does not
even mentioned Ve.l_:.i_(§l–e_ niunjaberllland therefore the
t.1-ibunal ought “star-have’*insistield upon the production of
original poiiey itiself was unsafe to act on a xerox
eop’V?~’whieh a1s’o–.,d_oes not appear to be a convincing
doeurnent.tonlth_e face of it.
0′ ._ ‘the above 1’easo’ns. the matter requires
_v remé.”nd”~–t.o the tribunal to consider the question of the
lfire11iie_ler involved in the accident: being insured with the
— atpptilllatnt, or not. and for this purpose both the parties
are at liberty to prodmte adcfiiional (3Vid€I1C(‘3 and policy
also shouid be pr0duc.<:*.d. The1'ee1i"€'.er the t1ribL1na1
dispose of the (:ase within thret-3 mc)nt11s from _1.§ii'é "(1f__ _
receipt. of this order. Both the pggrties :.»:z1*<-:'v*£i i1f<:'('f't(iC'.Ato__4
appear before the tribunal on '
' TGDGE