Karnataka High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd ... vs Smt Lakshmamma, on 17 June, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
* c»v';:" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2010;' G BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A_JIT,J.G*UNJ}§.L G W.P.No. 1805L52/201(5'1«(G1?§2I425LC}*r BETWEEN: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Cor. _ Regional Office, ' _ 5 " No.31, Ground Floor, ; TBR Towers, _ ' lst Cross, Mission Road; '4 _, Bangalore ~ » V_ ...Petitioner [By Sri.B.C;V§'§'eethar;31no:.«rfidvf AND: G G V 1. Smt;.Lakshrr1arnI1"ra, V. Anané[email protected], " Aged 21'bfou_t'~3__2 years. 2. I S/Vo';%Late.P,3?;r1ajah @ Nanjappa, Aged about" 15 years. . 2%/Iiss.L;aV}anya, . '_ D/o:A_Late Annajah @ Nanjappa, "Aged about 12 years. 4. Miss.Naveer1a, D/o.Late Annaiah @ Nanjappa, Aged about 10 years. 5. Sri.Marappa, S/o.Late Nanjappa, Aged about 66 years. 6. Srnt.Nanjamma, W/o.Sri.Marappa, Aged about 61 years. Respondents 2, 3, éiare minoisgf A _
Rep. by their mother'o_ffthe__ V. " ' First respondent hereinfi ' . p All are residents of Saw-".:a'~Batta Village; '' Denkanikote "i'a.1u--k, I , ' Padaginala. _ Krishnagiri Distrie't. . ., H'
7. Mr.A7,0du1 S'aj:a.m,"?.4 .4 I\/iajor; ' A V ~ Residing at._Sid.da~p'pa'"Layout, Opp :Vysya_V Bank, It-I.o"su._r*' Road, Bornrr:anaha11_i;" " V'
-' < B_ai"-;.ga1ore- 68.' _____ «{_C_)Cwnerf of Crane No.KA.O1/MB~6356) ..Respondents *=!=*=l=* ..}3r;" filed under Article 227 of the Constitution 6' " 'T ?".of.V1V'1'1dia praying to quash the notification No.ADMI/ 141/2010 datéAd.__r?7.03.2010 issued by Chief Judge, Court of Small Bangalore as per Annexure -- E3 and to restore the file ' toithie Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bangalore City before whom the proceedings were pending till RW-«l was exaniined etc., 'i'i'1eseW.Ps coming on for preliminary hearing the Court made the following:
oapsnif The respondents E to filed' petitionf according to the petitioner; thatonei Annaiah @ Nanjappa died due to The said claim petition is ..p_etitioner «Insurer on various grounds that there is no accident has not taken place in the wayzit in the claim petiton.
The claimants, closed their side of evidence. The zvpetitionjerd their Officer by way of filing affidavit On that day, the counsel for the was ahsent and the case was posted to 26-10-2009.
"flit"V.appearsfthereafter, the rnatter is transferred to another .0 pursuant to a notification. After the matter went to the transferee court, an application is moved by the claimants' (4 counsel for discarding the affidavit of the petitioner on the ground that it is argumentative and it is not in coiiforrriity with the rules. The said application is acceptedi learned Member of the Tribunal as against it it is before this Court.
2. I have heard Mr.Seetharax1priaVVRao;-learned counsel appearing for the petitioner?' the options of the petitioner are not farciosedwint. application of the claimants is directed to file a freshppyaffidaxriitdhsg Having perused the impugned that it does not warrant interference. it contention raised by Mr.Seetharama Rao, 1ea:1;edi'.¢§mis»:'1 fo1s..1the petitioner, is that they propose to file appl"rcati'on'vunder section 24 of CPC seeking transfer of case before the Chief Judge on various grounds. If such xapdplication is made, the learned Chief Judge shall consider the said application for transfer in accordance law and having regard to the circumstances narrated. 'IV 'V
4. The petifion stands disposed of:
we Bss.
; I .