LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-190

VEERAMMAL W/O NARAYANA SWAMY Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO. 5, PATHI PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR VATAL MAGARJ ROAD OKALIPURAM BANGALORE - 560021 AND MR. MOHAMMED RIYAZ S/O. MS. ABDUL REHAMAN NO. 27, 7TH MAIN, 15TH CROSS LAKKASANDRA BANGALOR

Decided On March 14, 2012
Veerammal W/O Narayana Swamy Appellant
V/S
Oriental Insurance Company Limited No. 5, Pathi Plaza, 3Rd Floor Vatal Magarj Road Okalipuram Bangalore - 560021 And Mr. Mohammed Riyaz S/O. Ms. Abdul Rehaman No. 27, 7Th Main, 15Th Cross Lakkasandra Bangalor Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2006 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in MVC No. 5860/2004 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The appellant claims that on 07.06.2004 at about 6.00 p.m. she was dashed by a tempo bearing registration No. KA -31 -302 while its driver was driving it in a reverse gear.

(2.) THE Court below has dismissed the claim petition solely on the basis of the admissions given by the appellant in her cross examination. The relevant paragraph in the cross examination reads thus: I did not seen which Tempo dashed to me. It is correct to suggest that the tempo No. KA -31 -302 has not dashed against to me and tempo KA -07 -3318. It is correct to suggest that KA -07 -3318 dashed against to me. It is correct to suggest that the accident took place when KA -07 -3318 took the reverse side. It is correct to suggest that KA -31 -302 was not at fault and I have filed a false case against to that vehicle.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant does not understand Kannada language, and hence, she did not understand the questions put to her in Kannada in the course of cross -examination. He further submitted that the answers recorded by the court are not correct and they do not convey what she intended to state. He submitted that the appellant is a Tamilian and knows only Tamil and she was examined without providing an interpreter before the Court. No other contention was urged by learned counsel for the appellant and he prayed for remand of the petition for its hearing afresh.