Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.01 seconds)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. vs Govindamma And Ors. on 16 June, 2005

4. The learned Counsel for claimant-appellants in M.F.A. Nos. 748 and 749 of 2003 contends that the Commissioner has passed a just and fair award and since there was no contest by any of the respondents, the Commissioner was justified in allowing the claim. The FIR indicating that there were passengers being carried on the vehicle was not a document which was relevant for the purpose of considering the claim for compensation. It might at best have been produced though it has been produced by the claimants to prove the fact of accident and would not necessarily indicate the connection in so far as the deceased were concerned with the vehicle or their relationship with the employer and relies upon the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Moses Dindannavar And Ors., . This contention is taken note of to be rejected since the judgment relies upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants is on a different factual situation and the law declared in that particular case that the claimant was not bound by the contents of the FIR, would not squarely apply to the present case when the FIR has been produced by the claimants themselves and if the FIR is to be ignored or negated, it is inexplicable that it would necessarily follow that the accident itself would not be proved. The FIR cannot, for one purpose be accepted and negated for another, unless the claimants had established that the contents of the FIR were partly true.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - A Byrareddy - Full Document

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Mahadev S/O Late Shivalingaiah on 13 December, 2012

In this proceedings, respondents - claimants before the Tribunal tried to justify their fraudulent act committed with connivance of police by relying upon unreported decision of this Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Samandaiah and others in MFA No.5794/2008 disposed of on 02.09.2010 and also in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Moses Dindannavar and others reported in 1996 ACJ 938 in trying to establish that the claimants are not bound by the contents of FIR and also the mahazar, which is drawn by the police on 11.10.2004. This Court do accept that where there are slight variations inasmuch as not giving minute details regarding the manner in which accident has taken place and other particulars, which are not relevant, the same may be ignored. However, these two judgments will not 12 enure to the benefits of the claimants in this proceedings, for the reason that here there is deliberate attempt on the part of police in implicating totally different vehicle into the proceedings without there being reference to the said vehicle in the F.I.R., or any other documents which have come into existence immediately after accident and the same being included based on the further statement said to have taken place prior to filing of charge sheet. When the vehicle which was seized at the place of accident being very much present, question of bringing another vehicle and try to demonstrate that the accident is caused by the said other vehicle, does not stand to reason. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid Judgment will have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Satyanarayana - Full Document
1