Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J
SMT. SAVITA W/O. HANAMANT YADAHALLI – Appellant
Versus
SRI. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA YADAHALLI – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants challenge tribunal's ruling. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments focus on liability and compensation. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. court assesses liability based on evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. compensation calculated based on applicable laws. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
4. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Hanamant who filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation for the death of Hanamant. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.
6. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the TT unit did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident and he submits that there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
8. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW.1 and marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. The Officer of the insurance company was examined as RW 1. The Owner was examined as RW.2 and marked 5 docum
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
