Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Parvathi @ Parvathamma on 6 September, 2011
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
Fi N THE HIGM COURT OF KABNATAKA AT BANGALORE -- DATED THIS THE 6" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. BEFORE & HON'BLE MELIUSTICE SUBHASH : ae "2 oe ia MISCELLANEOUS FIRST ities NO.924 OF 2007 (MV) 2 . Te MPA.CROS, NO.262 OF 2007 (AV) - / MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL} 40.925 OF 2007 (MV) te mcg 7) pe ier QURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU i BETWEEN: : IRARCE ¢ C0 LF : OFFICE-®, HO.S2 °° VINAY COR PUEN, VALE : ADL, BANGALORE ~ eS bos ee GY Le QULY CO! NSTITUTED ATT: DRNEY. PP ELLANT (ey GAT: CR | RAS ABO, ADORAT 2) BAD: SMT PREYATHI @ PARVET HAMA © AGED ABOUT 21-YEARE ye SAL VERKATAPEA RIAT IATTIPALVA, HAG e Pe HAO MSL LE HOGLL RANAKASUIRA TALUE JESALSRE RRR Efe) Fale es SRI & SVAN of SEI & GOPALA KRISH oo ee BART 80,3497" Make ROAD _. THVAGARAIANAGAE : BANGALORE ~ 56O G26. . RESPONOCENTS eae "(BY SRi: MALLESH GOWDA, AL ooo" RESPOROENT BO = BERWEO) HIGH COURT.OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH SPREE MPSCELLANBCRIS PIRES APPEAL Te BILE LINOEE BECTION . 1733) OF BY ALT iS) THE IJOGRENT AND AWARD GATED 26.06.2009 PASSED IN BVO NO.3522/2002 ON THE FILE OF 14" ADDL. JUDGE, MER DER. aS), COURT GF SHALL CAUSES, METROPOLITAN AREA, BeCKSALORE Mlle 10), AUARISTIRS & COMPENSATION OF Toe, oy "eit TETERBS? 2Y THE RATE OF G% 0.4. FROM THE DATE OF PETITEON TELL DEPOSI. ty fa, rr ~ se a Sow 5 fee . JJOGE, RENSER, MACT, HETROPOLITAN AREA, 'ENHANCEMENT f FOR COMFE VASP MAPLIN E GIP RVARAUATAIUA REGH GOK OF KARNATAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CAUCE OF KARNATAKA MEGH € Pe TH PR CROLL NG 206/207 | BET WE KUM PARVATHI @ SARVATHAMMA B/G VENKATADPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS _ JETTYPALVA, KAGGALINALLT POST | HAROMALLE HOBL | HANARAPURA TALI an SANGSLORE AURAL DISTRICT, ON, os, CROSS OBJECTOR we (BY SRT: MALLESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE} Q =
a THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTG ay »GFFIGE -%, NGE VERAY COMPLEX, We ROAD -- ALORE = 560 4.
Sea SRE G FAVAN Sf. ok i & COPALKRIS sk 7 BANGALORE = BAO OLE RESPONDENTS (#¥ SAI: CR RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE MOA RESPONDENT WO, RESPONDENT PME ~ SERVED) TMS MAS CAOR 1W.MRA S24)/2007 TS FILED UNDER GRDBR 41 RULE 22 REAG WITH SECTION 181.0F CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.5,2008 IK MYO.NO. 5523/2003 ON THE FILE OF 14° ADDITIONAL GALORE, SOLH-LO, LDH FOR COMPENSATII) ANG SEEAING PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIR } PEYS
-- BeTwekn: . --
PHS WEW INDIA ASSL DIVESION AL OFFICE: &, NO. 2 . VINAY COMPLEX, VW.ROAD LEE E~ $60 (8 ay ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY. APPELLANT DOY Gal: © 2 RAVISHAREAR, ADVOCATES sebett BA Bact! onal somplainant of 869,000/- and AND:
SRE BUNIRAIU 5/0 SAL MARA MARY RJA? BAIDU LAYOUT, TARACLAMGHALLT ho? PES BE GALORE = $60 O72. -
Sh & PA ABS OR SIC SALA GOPALA (ROSHNA ESTING AY MOSS, 7° GAIN ROAD fsa = $60 O28. OS URNS 2 (SERVICE OF NOTICE OW RESPOWDE aw.
TES MISCELLANEOUS, 17% i} OF MV ACT AGAINST THE IULDGRENT AMES AWARD GATED 26.4.2 PASSED IN MVE HO. 5524/2003 ON THE FILE OF 14" ADDL. JUDGE, MEM BACT COURT OF SMALL, CAUSES iG T The delay of 26 days in filing MFA Ne.925/2007 is
2. Thase wes + appeals are fled by the ineurer questioning the quantum of compencation. The Tribunal hes awardad O0O/- reepectyely with # inbarest in MVC Ne.5523/2003 and MVC No.5524/2003 and "directed che ingurer te pay the compansation. Ae against the She direction, he isgurer Aes Flec the eppesls. The croge Erest AGPEAL. = SILeo UNDES SECTION
- 4 Bee, LEA.
nad Ps ge "ag wi £4 he ical iA ee =f A a ac oe ite?
a:
haa Le andiaax mos ho if Ms 26 5 Sy (eg Bae oA fea mate, ae o a sakes ip aol satygeee eds = = fe ibe Pe ad foo thé compensation awarded by the No. SS23/2003 @ am the ower aide,
4. lt ie stmted that the claiment hed. suffe: ved fre cture af. | shaft of right femur and was treated ne inpatient : fem | 13.10.2003 te 31.10.2003. Considaring the nature of injeries end the evidence of the doctor, comperisstion awarded. by the Tribune! appears to be reasonable ane it dows: fret call for inberfareance. Rowever, as far as payment of sompensation is concemed, in my. opinion, tt is sust and proper to direct the insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same frorn the owner of the vehicle, f Rajendra and | Pavan are two diferent persone end Pavan was 'not Hold! ng the leence, Accordingly, pps ale fi led by" the ingu rer are party allowed. Cross Oblection inguner is directed to pey the flad thy the cis imant is, relected compensation and recover tia game from the owner of the vehicia, Amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal.