Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
UMESH M ADIGA, J
JYOTHIMANI MARY REGINA, S SURESH STEPHEN – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DINESH BHAT V – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claimant's dependency. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. circumstances of the accident and claims for compensation. (Para 6) |
| 3. court discussion on liability issues and statutory provisions. (Para 7) |
| 4. legal query about intoxication and liability. (Para 11) |
| 5. court finding on insurer's liability. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. order of appeal and modifications introduced. (Para 14) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
4. Respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the said offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 denied the contentions of the claim petition and further contended that rider of the motor cycle was under the influence of liquor/intoxication and a case was registered against him under the provision of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act and 304 of IPC. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the compensation.
6. The claimants to prove their case examined one witness and marked Ex.P1 to P25. Respondent No.1 examined RW1 and marked Ex.R1. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded following amount of compensation:
7. The Tribunal held that the rider was under the influence of alcoho
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
