SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Kar) 172

H.N.NARAYAN
MEENAKSHAMMA – Appellant
Versus
HANUMANTHAPPA – Respondent


Advocates:
G.Sashikanth, O.MAHESH

H. N. NARAYAN, J.

( 1 ) THE claimant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The insurance company has filed cross-objections questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence.

( 2 ) A few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal and cross-objections are as follows: the appellant who was working as a cooli has alleged that on 15-11-1983 at about 9 A. M. she was moving in anaveri-Holehonnur road and at that time a tiller driven by respondent 1 therein rashly and negligently came behind and dashed against her as a result, she fell down and the wheel of the tiller ran over crushing her left hand. She was immediately taken to Mc. Gann Hospital, Shimoga where she was treated. This claim is disputed by the owner and the insurer who have inter alia contended that there is no motor accident and the claim is a false one. The parties have led in some evidence before the Tribunal in support of their respective contentions. On consideration of the same, by rejecting the contention of the respondents, the Tribunal has allowed the claim in part granting compensation of Rs. 12,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE Counsel for the appellant submits that the t









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top