The Managing Director Bmtc vs Sri Dasappa on 3 March, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Managing Director Bmtc vs Sri Dasappa on 3 March, 2016

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                          1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

             M.F.A. No.1403 OF 2015(MV)


BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
B.M.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
                                     ....APPELLANT

(BY SRI.KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADV.)

AND:

1.     SRI. DASAPPA,
       S/O SRI. CHENNAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.298, 6TH CROSS,
       INFRONT OF MODI HOSIPITAL,
       WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
       RAJAJINAGAR,
       BANGALORE - 560 010.

2.     UNITED INSURANCE
       COMPANY LTD.,
       NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX,
       K.R.ROAD, FORT,
       BANGALORE - 560 002.
       BY ITS MANAGER.               ...RESPONDENTS
                             2




      THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF AWARD DATED:18.02.2012
PASSED IN MVC NO.2984/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SAMLL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.71,720/-
WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                   JUDGMENT

Even according to the learned counsel for the appellant-Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, the motor vehicle in question was insured with United India Insurance Company, which is not arraigned as a party before the Court below by the claimants in a proceeding for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, has preferred this appeal to direct the Insurance Company to make the payment. Learned counsel submits that the appellant-Corporation is not liable to make the statutory deposit while preferring the appeal.

2. Appeal is filed challenging the fastening of liability on the appellant on the premise that it has an indemnity extended by an Insurance Company. If that is so, then the appellant must exert itself in a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for necessary relief in terms of the alleged indemnity with the Insurance Company and not come before this Court by filing this appeal for such a relief. The office objection is sustained. Appellant to deposit the said statutory deposit and thereafter the Registry to forward the same to the concerned MACT.

Appeal dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE ln

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court