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

2024 Supreme(Kar) 1260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.MUDAGAL, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
G. Nagarathna – Appellant
Versus
G. Manjunatha – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C, ADV., A/W SRI. HRISHIKESH, ADV
For the Respondents: SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA K.B. ADV., FOR R1 SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R2

CAV JUDGMENT & ORDER

ON I.A.NO.1/2024

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

Challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1483/2014 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge and MACT, Arsikere, claimants have filed this appeal.

2. The appellants were the claimants and respondents were the respondents in MVC No.1483/2014 before the Tribunal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The wife, son and parents of deceased Sri.S.N.Ravisha filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Sri.N.S.Ravisha in a road accident that occurred on 18.06.2014. It was contended that the deceased was driving Fiat Linea Car bearing registration No.KA-06 N-5997 from Mallasandra Village to Arasikere town along with his father, sister and her children. Near Mylanahalli gate, Arsikere, he drove the car in high speed, rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, lost control over the car, as such the car toppled on the road and accident occurred. Ravisha sustained fatal injuries on his head

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Sukali Bai (Since Died), W/o. Shri Banwar Lal Dhruv (Wrongly Mentioned As Banwari), Through Legal Heirs- Banwar Lal Dhruv, S/o. Beldar Dhruv VS Satyeshwari Komare, Wd/o. Late Mukesh Komare - 2024 0 Supreme(Chh) 662: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled) are present. The entry states a legal principle: "Claimants must prove negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; failure to provide credible evidence results in dismissal of the claim." Categorized here as it appears to be a standalone holding without evidence of subsequent treatment.

Ningamma VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2009 5 Supreme 127: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The entry states a legal principle: "In case of the owner or an authorized person section 163A does not have any application." Categorized here as it appears to be a standalone holding without evidence of subsequent treatment.

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