Ramesh Padiyar vs M N Laxminarayana Manja on 15 February, 2019

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ramesh Padiyar vs M N Laxminarayana Manja on 15 February, 2019

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                          1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

             M.F.A. NO.5716 OF 2010 (MV)
BETWEEN

RAMESH PADIYAR,
64 YEARS,
S/O M. KESHAVA PADIYAR,
R/O MANOOR VILLAGE,
NEAR KOTA OLD POLICE STATION,
UDUPI TALUK.                           ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. M.N. LAXMINARAYANA MANJA,
33 YEARS,
S/O NAGESHWARA,
R/O MARANAKATTE,
CHITTUR VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.

2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE: P.B.NO.78,
KRISHNA COMPLEX,
G.B.PANTH ROAD, UDUPI.                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M.N. LAXIMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
                                 2


    THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.11.2008 PASSED IN
MVC NO.179/2006 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.),
KUNDAPURA, PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                    JUDGMENT

The claimant is before this court calling in question the judgment and award dated 21.11.2008 made by the MACT, Kundapura, dismissing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.179/2006. The MACT at internal Page Nos.11 & 13 of its impugned judgment and award, has observed as under:

"Pw.2 has stated in the cross-examination that the petitioner got the compensation from the said insurance company and given the receipt as he has taken the compensation in full and final settlement."

"It is clearly stated in the above said decision that, once the owner of the vehicle claimed compensation for damages caused to the vehicle from its insurer and accepted the amount in full and final settlement of the claim, the owner of the said vehicle cannot claim compensation from the opposite vehicle insurance company.

In the case on hand, the petitioner has received compensation of Rs.34,500/- from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in full and final settlement of his claim. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim 3 compensation from the owner and insurer of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-19-M-6110."

2. It is a settled legal position that the law of insurance provides for reimbursement of the amount to make good the damage suffered and not for making profit. The reason assigned by the MACT for dismissing the claim petition cannot be faltered.

In the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. Costs made easy.

SD/-

JUDGE cbc

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court