TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by" the High Court of Karnataka and the claimant is the appellant. The appellant was travelling in a KSRTC bus bearing No. CAP 3590 on 26.2,1989. The bus was "driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner; when the bus reached Ningadahalli village, passed through a pit On the road, the appellant sustained art injury on fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary produced in support of the case of the appellant and withholding of the documentary evidence by the respondent was right in holding that the bus was involved in the accident; the High Court gave undue emphasis to technicalities and niceties and arrived at a wrong conclusion that the bus was not involved in the accident. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing a finding that the said bus was involved in the accident. But we find that the approach of the High Court was wrong in appreciating the evidence in as much as it was technical and thrust was on niceties. When there were both oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of the appellant, which was accepted by the Tribunal, in our view, the High Court Clearly committed an error in reversin....