Zubairulla Khan @ Zubair vs Biddappa S/O Basappa on 27 May, 2009

wmnmm. mmrw-awn wwwnw wax swmmmmammm nawn mwwmy; wr mmmmmgmmm M

«mvnvvw-rm. uwwmmwwwmwamn

zw can-up-p-um warm

*3...

IN TEE I-§I(}HC(3UR'1' OF KARNATAKA AT RE

mmnnxm TM 27'!!! savor mzsrmm f i

BEFORE

Tmnolwrmm    _ 

  . 

SIOBABIUAN _
mmrm, NowAGm£7YEA’&23 x
R] OF Ihomsvr-3’1′ P0811. ‘H932;

HE AflLflE._:"V  V 

my 3121 'r c    g. 

3 BmD.AI~'PA    '   
3/0 a'A$_AI*PA ,

~ ‘££1OL’I§A1INAeHI;,__B£uAHDUR POST
é “~Ht&:mAGARB H RDA!)
» V sacam mun
”

2 ‘ »._4’I’IIE;.BR:’£§&’GH MANAGER
mum HISURAHQE cc Lm
ERAECH OFFICE, PB KC) 21
AA : IwUPA TRUST EUILBEIG
1i§FLooR,Jc ROAD
” QAGAR 577481, snmoaa
Rnsmnnsrwrs

V V” ._ (BYSRI o nmHEsH., ADV. my: 1222)

THIS BEA I3 FILED Ufs 1?.’-3(1) OF MV AC-T, AQAIHST
Tfi JUEGE§&EI€T ANIZ3 Afifififi DATED 25.01.2097 P8383313
IN NYC 2%). 146}20G-5 C21′? ‘THE FEE G? P”R%1’i3IHG GFFICER,
FAST TRACK CC3URT~II fix REACT, BANGALORE RURAL

\%.

.. 2 ..

EETRICT, BANGALORE, Dmlflfifllliflr THE PETITION
CIAEVG COMPENSATEOH.

TI-E COURT’ £}ELI’§.’ERED THE FC)LLOW’IflG:—: ‘

JUnGMEHT_

5% Hfififl SQMRT Q? mfimcmm H

commm inqumfiafl~.1f}1e_1ud@n”7″ £~qAft1:;a ‘I”I*ibu”V:naL

2.wmmmm4mm@g$§T@ém&hmmm&m

flawmmgmfimfifimufifimmammymmdm

mum mponsime fin: the

aeoiderxf, ” thaa Tribunal} want an to
c&mmummm@gmg@@§#&gmm&mmsmm

-r-fiwlmarzt eanrwt get any
mm§m§h% 1%ZflfifmMgismm®;mwne
by the appellant as pm-

xg mks mam: been mnsiama by the T1-ibrunal
‘ @fi%@$®&fi%wmmwmmmmmfimfiamnmwa
n: $fifi&®édWmhmyM&h$fimmm%mwmMe
along with thc appellant and such
M#Qfl1&Gfi.fi&,it’fi nnrtpm’aperux:1thaeparto§tI’1eTxibuna1
to hold that acxtidant was mtrlzirely dua he the fault at’ tha

2»

»…-I’

a….%m.£¢M wt” mwimflfiflfifl mm-§ £335′ Kflaflfiflfffififi Wfififi C03???’ WW Wfiflwfififififi Hfififl cam? Q? 5€fiW”I§€5

ms M.F.A come on ma _

‘fin: appellant is
exam” peman by the Tribunal’ he;

K’2fttl'”W. I#M””VnE”L.fi'””‘& 3; 5

mrwwvswanve vwv:

“X MWMKQ WI” Wwfiiammmwamsmm. £§’§H’év.’.Wsé Mwmuwmfi MM ewrmmuwH~w.m’m.~2.—. :¢:~>m”.2>.a

.. 3 ..

appellant. As auch, the judmem ef the Tribunal mquitjgw

ta be set asida and apportionad
two drivers’ aa was hnad on ml]1aio’ :1 betweéfi A
vebzcles’ as per Ex.1’~’3 Mahazar ‘ 2

am-i €).Mabash R31!’ the
argued that the findim am
to tha pmwcmage’ driven; (cf
the iiééidmt and mom
om and both the
drivem being um app-eflant is not e:u’l:ithd

both sides, 1 am of the View

I % war in mum tha me aecmem was
_ accountoffiault oftbeappellant because

% inmate that driver ofthz apvpoafie vehicle
_ was aha shown as me of the accused i.e.,
He-.1 and mererm, the Tribunal caught ten new
tbequastian 0f 0f bettwm

thetwo driveraandastlahwaa ntdor1cbythe’I’ribum.1

fir»

‘ I

éfiifiq HEQH CGURY SF Kfi.E%NA”¥”AKfi Hi

~23 mswawwzaw war mflflmflfiflflfi mmm z..wu&§M..z¥- fififlwfliflflfl HEGH QWUWT UP Kflfiwfiiffififi MEG” CQURY WW Kfikifi

– 4 ..

that matter mquires remand for fneah caom.fieratisonVT–t::_t11e
‘I’rihuna1. Thfim, {pass the folbwirg ‘2

‘Fix: appeal is allowad. The ”
asizie and mm is remanded wmambm .1}
c=onaideratk>n and the

mama mamas pan
of the two driven, the mauaer in
aewrdanzze remanded at
1135:: point of nf that: cases.
within cf receipt csf a cap}: 91’
this mm. are dimcbed tn appwr
befom

…..

Judge