Laxmi Kharvi vs Ramachandra Jadhav on 29 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Laxmi Kharvi vs Ramachandra Jadhav on 29 July, 2008

Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna

-1-

IN THE HIGH CQURT 0? KARgA?AKA aT_§A§g£:éRE*,V

QRTED THIS THE 29" DA: éE"JUﬁY 2O08"iV; 

9RESﬁwj
THE HON'BLE MR.JusT£éEfm_L MAEJUNAEH

THE Howﬁaas MR§1Jﬁ§::¢3_BTvfNAGARATHNA

7,4fg§A~$jL9;0;2Q§4fM§}

BETwEgN_'< "'

hRxM§vKHAEYI."; 
WfQ"KRISHN§vKS%RVi
AGED £8 ¥EAPSv j
,--MADBUQUDDE ' '
~;.KUN§APURA_EA5ABA
A' ~~ HUNDAPURA
'n_ uDUP:*?ALUK

. A?PELLANT

{$¥ SR} %R§ESHKIRAN SHETTY, RDV.,}

AND a

'- _'»1f'RAMAcHANeRA,JADHAV

MRJGR

S/O RATHAN JRQHAV
GOPALPURA VILLAGE
PRNDQRRPURR TALUK
SOLAPUR BISTRICT
MRHRRASH?RA



96

U1

_ 2 _

Mrs L G TRANSPORT $0.,
BAIRRVRNA?HA CO»0?. ~""~
HGUSENG SOCIETY 1
SECTION NO.l?

NEW MUMBRI

MAHARASHTRA

THE NEW IRDIA,INSUEﬁﬂ€E. _
COMQRNY LTD '_'u .1 , ",»_V
HENLE HQUSE, :i'ELcQR,v '
J.N.HERm:A R0AQ_'.Vv

BALARS asTATE{ " «_4.,_ ,
MUMBA:;1},<V.2'% * *_-<~w.

HA:maR,;MAJ0R_'f;« - 1
szo_HAMMABBA BEAR? -_Wﬁ
KQTA;=P%DUKEag<9.e..
KQTA;.UDUP:'TALyK--"

G TH:MMA;j§A:0$}

.PRR?NER

-§M/3.8AMATaA MOTORS

 G§LIUXARR ViLLAGE

?.Q,gKQTA

"Vupg§:VD:sTR1C?

.6

V Tag §RiENTAL ZNSRUANCE
" CQMPANY LIMITED

BRANCH Q€FICE

"=, KUNEAPURA

(BY SR1 HARINI SHIVRNRNDR,
SR1 B C SEETHRRAMA RAG, ADV.,

'fey ITS BRANCH MANAGER

RES?ONDENTS

RDV., FOR RM3;
FOR R-6;

R~é & 5 SERVE§;
R~2 M DISQENSED WITH}

THIS MFR IS ETLEQ U/S l?3(l) O? M.V.RCT

AGRINS? THE JUDGMENT BN3 AWﬁRQ DATED 30.8.2003
PASSED Iﬁ MVC Nﬁ.lE64/2980 SN THE FILE OF THE



- 3 -

CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN} & MEMBER, Am9:?:ow§LfMé§T;_

KUNERPURA, §ARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIHl?S??TZG§~ 
FGR C®M?ENsATIcm Amy SEEKING» ENﬁ§NQEM$NT o§_ a

COMPENSATION. _,m__ j

THIS APPEAL C©M:NG- cw fgoé 'QR@$Rs'TT§13
BAX, NRG&RﬁTHNA .3 DELIHEREB wag €QLLQw:N$:'
J U D G §£§;N T*_:*V' V H
Though thia matte: i5 b¢3ted forwbrders,
with the consent ﬁf c0un§¢l Qﬁ bath sides: it

is disposedééfq

2. ? 1% apgéai is iiiéﬁwﬁy the claimant
being a%g;ﬁé%é§~bg%f'£ﬁ%-- §Q§gment and awarﬁ
pass§§"§ﬁ"§yc:§§ §§é§;2§5d dated 30.8.2003 by
MAST %tJKuﬁda§§g$g*: '

' ,4

$1 'fhe télevanﬁ facts cf tha case ara

'?w£ga£-- ¢$-"x§;5.20s@ at abaut 3.30 p.m., the

claimant" glamg with, &nothet' person. by' name

 aSushée}a Kharvi was travelling as passenger in

V b§$1'bearing' N©.KA~2G/R.2l02 from: Sa$than to

 " ' Kundapura and. when they' reachedT Beejadi on

%



-4-

N.H.:7, a tanker bearing ragistxaiign

:x:o.~1;;.@4/::'.6§25 cashed against the 

result of which, the c1aim&ﬁt"*$V$taﬁnedu'

injuries. Centending ~:ha: She3Ewxi suffered

paxmanent disability  a§ §=_iesu1£} Q§ }the_ 

injuries sustained iQM\ﬁh§ étdiﬁenﬁ, the
claimant had file§lElaQ§;y%tgﬁiénbbefore MACT,
Kundapura. ,_  »~ *.'VA ' V V

4. 'Qﬁ :f%ceip£liQ%i éﬁ§mbns item the
tribu§§;;u €ﬁ% .%é$ﬁ§ﬁ§éﬁﬁ E§im$uran¢e company
had §@p§§f§@ g%d fiﬂ@dfits written staiement
C0ntesﬁAﬂg'tﬁé@ ﬁ:§ii) petition on variaus

rouﬁds and ﬂéh in tha averments made in the

 cl$imE§etiﬁion ané had scmght fer diamissal of

"thé same, :%s

5:: Based on the abcve pléadingg, the

'tribunal formulated the fallowimg igaussz

1.

Whether the petiti0nerT prmves that she met W3'. tin an aezcidezzt am"; & -5- 14.5.2060 at absut 3.38 p.m. _at Beejadi village, Kundapura taluk on N.H.:? while she was travelling as a. passenger in a bus _be&r£hg registratian N0.KA.2Q/AEEQEL fﬁamﬁﬂﬂ Saathan ta Kundapura? 'W .2 _.

2. Whether the petitiQRQr prdves. that, the said accidemt 'na$ Vcqcmzréﬁ ﬁolely due te the ras$"ahd3neqiigéBﬁ7f act on the part of the dtjvet 'mfa tankar bea§i§g W Registratjon No.MH.e4/c~6e25 Vaﬁd tha_ petitioner has sustained gpievous iﬁjuriés on her person due to the Said impact? 2 whether thé»f§' ré$pG§dént imsuramca company" proves ﬁhata_the fdriver 0f involved tahker beariﬁg"Registrati@m N©,Mﬁ;Qﬁ/€625 w3s"iK¢5 having valid and» éfﬁectiva .ﬁ:;v:ng licence to d{iVé "tha "$aid.,vehisle as on the , 1111 "daté"ef_tmé'$cciQent? £L_ @hethe: ﬁhe K¥&-respsndent insurance '.company ié ﬂop at all liabla to pay 'any boﬁﬁenéation for the reasens _ s£ated ;ia_'§axa ll of the written Vu.sta€e@ent?

f5;;;_Whether""the "" petitioner is' entitled v §G£, campensatien? If so, ta what T.'H3xmmﬁamiﬁmmwmm?

'2§." Rﬁhat order or award?

n, 6. Zn support of her case, the claimant ;gxamiﬁed herself as 9.w;1 and one ErLShiVaKumar as P.W.2 and get marked Ex.P.i sto 9.83 and Ex.C.l and C2 to C3 were marked at y l€$p®é11aﬁf:"$hgt the Claimant had suffered 'x§emur~§ﬁd Haemourthrosis 0f the left knee and 5é3¢ée§ fracture of right clavicle bone and '°tﬁat cansidering the fact that she was in fish llvending buainess, the disability caused to he: -5-

the instance vi the tribunal. Gm the aﬁaye evidence; the tribunal awarded a¢l§l§g£l, aompensation cf Rs.l,7?,?3ﬁ/M wlﬁ§jl§n§§£§stl @8% p.a.

7. Not being ea-t:§;'vgVV'§":;.@,<:1 wj_1t'r:l."'.=t%i;=; said judgment and award{v;haf§léimaﬁt has ﬁréferred this appeal.

8. ﬁe_ hﬁﬁéu ﬁéafﬁ» the *learned counsel for théméppélléﬁi and thé learned counsel far the re$pQmdént*4iﬁsufange cempany.

lf9'¢; 5? :5" submitted an behalf of the cdmmﬂnitédlffacture of lowﬁr end of the left as a result 0f the accident was coasiderabla % .._7....

and that ﬁhe tribunal hag awa:d§§ x§eéqer compensatian an various heads and"the:ef6re;V the same ought tﬁ be réééssessed. by "this Court.

learned sounaei for th%i%ﬁg§on@éﬁ§rwiﬁsurance campany in suppdf£TQfﬁtﬁéu3¢§gment émd award that the tribuna;»h§$V§ﬁ%g£é§ é§§pensati©m on all the hé§§§ §m§Xth§ §@§§$éhE and awamd does not cal:»fd;§an§'ig€éﬁfé£§@¢é in this appeal. IfLnTﬁ§ Eh}? ﬁoiﬁtwﬁhat arises for our considef§ti§5 J i%*ﬁHa$ to whether the com9§ns§tiQn §wé@@§§ by the tribunal raquires t& hg_rQ&assés«ed?

12. "The appellant has examined the 'T§égi6ﬁVwhﬁ>t:eated her as P.W.2. P.W.2, in his era} avidence, has categorically deposed nt§atT"ﬁe had. examined the petitiemez' for the %' 1G. Per Contra, ii; i$ $ﬁbmitﬁég_@gﬂ§ih& ; -10- bkv

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Laxmi Kharvi vs Ramachandra Jadhav on 29 July, 2008

Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna