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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 645

K.RAMANNA, M.F.SALDANHA
NARASAMMA – Appellant
Versus
M. SAIBABA – Respondent


Advocates:
KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, R.B.DESHAPANDE, S.SHRISHAILA, SOUMYA VAIDYA, VEERABHADRAIAH

SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) AN interesting point has fallen for decision in this appeal, which basically revolves around the question as to whether the status of a passenger continues if the passenger has indicated an intent to leave the vehicle in which the passenger was travelling and whether the extended principle which has been held applicable in certain cases for certain reasons that the status will hold good to situations where the injury has been caused in the process of alighting, would also cover a case where injury has occurred immediately after the person has alighted. We shall briefly recount the facts giving rise to this controversy. One Hussainappa who was aged approximately 60 years had travelled in a goods vehicle, viz. , a truck on the evening of 17. 7. 1993 and this vehicle stopped near a Mutt at which time Hussainappa got down from the truck in question. There is some slight ambiguity with regard to exactly how the injury was sustained but the wife and minor children who are the claimants before the M. A. C. T. had contended that he had just alighted from the vehicle, that the cleaner was in a hurry as a result of which he did not give Hussainappa sufficient time to get c












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