Teh Branch Manager vs Sri H C Ramachandra on 4 April, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Teh Branch Manager vs Sri H C Ramachandra on 4 April, 2017

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA

       WRIT PETITION NO.60115/2016 (GM-AC)


BETWEEN:

The Branch Manager
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
#1825/14C, 1st floor,
Shree Complex, Old BM Road,
Hunsur, Mysore District,
Now represented by its
Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office, No.44/45,
Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road,
Bengaluru - 25.                          ...Petitioner

(By Smt.Harini Shivananda, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Sri.H.C.Ramachandra, 56 years,
       S/o late H.P.Channappa, Mestry,
       Bar Bender, Agriculturist,
       R/o Hosabeedu Village,
       Hangal Post - 571 236.
       Somwarpet Hobli & Taluk,
       Kodagu District.
                             2




2.   Sr.Subramani, Major,
     S/o Shekara, R/o # 150,
     Belur Basavanahalli Village,
     Somwarpet Hobli & Taluk,
     Kodagu District.                       ...Respondents


       This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
impugned judgment and award dated 02.09.2016 vide
Annexure - L and M passed in MVC No.27/2015 on the
file of Principal District Judge and MACT at Kodagu,
Madikere since Ex-R-1 vide Annexure 'D' is a
manipulated document.

     This Writ Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:-

                        ORDER

Registry has raised the objections relating to maintainability, since the judgment and award passed in MVC No.27/2015 is assailed in a writ petition though the petitioner has remedy of appeal as provided under Section 173(1) of MV Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Harini Shivananda, while seeking to contend that even a writ petition could be filed has relied on decision 3 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Rajendra Singh and others (AIR 2000 SC 1165). Having perused the said decision, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that circumstance was considering the situation where the High Court had refused to look into the judgment and award on the ground it had attained finality and it has expressed helplessness to even look into the matter though fraud was alleged. In that circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had entertained the Special Leave Petition and made the observation.

3. In the instant case the objection raised at present is that the petitioner has the alternate remedy of appeal. If that be the position, even the contentions on behalf of the petitioner that the owner has played fraud in relying upon the policy which did not exist is also a contention which could be examined in the appeal to come to a conclusion as to whether by the 4 award, the liability has been wrongly fixed on the insurance company. Therefore, in the present facts, the petitioner insurance company is not denied of any opportunity by this Court for consideration of the contentions but what is indicated is the appropriate statutory remedy to be availed. In that view, the objections raised by the Registry is sustained.

4. This petition shall be rounded of as disposed with a liberty to the petitioner to convert the same into an appeal whereupon the Registry shall place the matter before the Bench having roaster for the subject.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBM/UN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court