AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajulu, J.—The claimant in MVC No. 538/2005 on the file of Fast Track Court, Mandya is the Appellant in this appeal.
It is the case of the claimant that on 23.11.2011 at 5.00 pm while the Petitioner was standing near S. Kodihalli gate, the driver of the hero honda motor cycle bearing Regn. No. KA-04/EA-2421 has driven the vehicle rashly, negligently and dashed against the Appellant/claimant. On account of it, he sustained injuries. For the pain, suffering and agony he seeks compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs.
The Insurance Company has filed objections. Deny the claim, contend that it is exaggerated and pray for dismissal of the claim petition.
Learned advocate for the claimant contend that when the police papers are placed to prove the case of the claimant in regard to accident, the approach of the Tribunal disbelieving accident is not opt.
Learned advocate Sri Rajgopal, appearing on behalf of R-2 Insurance Company on the other hand submits that it is not only necessary to mark the documents there is also duty cast upon the claimant to prove the documents. No material is placed to probably the proof of police records. So, pray for dismissal of the appeal.
Material submissions probably that in regard to the accident and in regard to the actionable negligence, the Tribunal has rejected the claim. The approach of the Tribunal can be accepted. if company has raised objection for marking FIR complaint no such method being adopted by the company, the approach of the Tribunal is too technical. If this is permitted, the investigation papers has to be eschewed, it cannot be done in law, so the judgment is liable to be set aside.
Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial court to give a finding afresh in accordance with law.