Sri Sundaresh S/O Poonuswamy vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd on 11 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 11]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Sundaresh S/O Poonuswamy vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd on 11 August, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BARGALQRE

DATED THIS THE 11"' DAY 01? AUGUr$'T2GQ$:: 'ff.   _  

_f2l_?»_1.':'.<..3...1S..1$r"3..:.%%jk 

THE HON'BLE MR. JUS1'ICE  _ %
MISCELLANEOUS F1RsT'A1?PEAL %N4).4s9*;%oi?2<mtxMv)k A %

BETWEEN:

Sri Sundarc:sh;_: _ %   
S/0 Ponnusﬁﬁlﬁif, ,     
Aged abt3u15{)'}*-airs 3 
Residin'g%ét"TA..:1f, 7*}  _
Chikké2vv_ThirapaEhi;'V--,»  _ j  
Baxzsalorerzoact "

Maiur,  ' V'

mar visa-iex.   X  APPELLANT

 V.  *   Advocate)

   

I. Bajaj General
Insurance Company Limited,

"  * :Nn.1V0'5-A, Cents Plaza,
*  u  No.l36,
* Residency Road,

 Bangalure W 560 025
Represented by its Manager.

2. Sim. Scnthamarai
W/0 Gnanaveian,



3 
that the appellant had lodged a claim for compeasatiioiii. The

Tribunal has rejected the claim on account  

discrepancies whereas, the rider of the vehicle the

police had initiated criminal  hzlidel.  

charge brought in this reganl"i;t!&l..theielE)i*e,.  was 

error in  to  In the face of the
circumstance     the appellant being a
pillioo  the accident, the Tribunal
has    for compensation. Hence, the

Counsel iw:guId_    is a lit case which requires to be

 _ rexnsjnded to the" for a fresh consideration on merits since

 '   rejected the petition on the alleged inlirmities,

which did 'riot.  away the genuineness of the claim.

 A. , '_  "The Counsel for the respondent on the other hand would

that the discrepancies are glaring and would go to the root 2 the matter. The circumstances would indicate want of 5 4 bunatides on the part of the appeilant and it is this \'..'i')_iUi] has Prompted the Tribunal to reject the claim peiitam. 7

4. The Counsel for the respondent that in the claim petition '1 aecident is shown as the SO()t:ri.6l_':

the accident is said to have appellant had thought it [it to lodgei:tth_e Report before the aftef"'a'iiperiod of six months and signiﬁcentiy, V in: ..-Infomwtion Report, the vehicle mentioned from the vehicle indicated in the i it = gietitiim. circumstanee that a muhaxar is said to subsequent to the report icdged with the petice, the--__'i(ieiiiiiIicati0n of the vehicle allegedly having taken P1806 ii thereattei, there is doubt as to the very genuineness of the claim is this aspect of the matter which has been addressed by the it Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition. Notwithstanding the other incidental decuments that may have been produced, as a result of g 5 the accident and the alleged injuries, the appellant having. to satisfy the Tribunal on the basic {acts as to the the alleged vehicle, necessarily absolve Jtlie»'insurer"a.irid has rightly rejected the claim petition".-.' A i A

5. By way of the appellant would submit that e\feI}::Ai¥l\v:.tl1e i'ai:isi3iliaed or liability, the Tribunal was for compensation as againstillie ' there was admission of the accident. vivehicle involved. Therefore, the liability eoulii well on the owner of the vehicle and i i " ofithe requires to be considered by the Tribunal. regard to the glaring discrepancies that are a;i§3ziren_t' the record, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the eliainl Though an attempt is made to contend that there other documents which would point to the injuries and it iiidisability which the appellant suffers from and would necessarily have to be addressed with reference to the admission of guilt by 5 the rider of the vehicle bearing no.KA-01-U~7639V.A§.1{:?$$' consideration. The appeal is dismissed. {IV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court