Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs M Shivanna on 16 August, 2012
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
MFA NO.4241/2008(MV)
BETWEEN :
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, #92, EAST COAST CHAMBERS,
I FLOOR, G.N.CHETTY ROAD, T. NAGAR,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU,
NOW REP.BY ITS
SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.12,
MAYUR COMPLEX, KIADBMAIN ROAD,
PEENYA, BANGALORE-560058.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV.)
AND :
1. M.SHIVANNA,
S/O MUDDAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
2. SMT.YASHODAMMA,
W/O M.SHIVANNA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
3. SHOBHA D.S.,
D/O M.SHIVANNA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
2
ALL PERMANENT R/O DEVALAPURA,
DEVALAPURA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TQ.
NOW R/A YEDIYUR, YEDIYUR HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK.
4. N.KUMARAVEL,
S/O C.NATESHAN,
NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OWNER OF SHARANYA TRAVELS,
R/O # 1337, 14TH MAIN ROAD,
I STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT,
BANGALORE-560 078.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADV. FOR R1, 2 & 3)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.12.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO.1304/2005 ON THE FILE OF
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KUNIGAL, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,99,000/- INCLUDING INTERIM
COMPENSATION OF RS.50,000/- AWARDED WITH
INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the ground of liability.
2. As respondent No.4-the owner of the offending vehicle was not served with the notice of appeal 3 in the regular course, the appellant made an application in IA-1/2012 under Order 5, Rule 20 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking permission of the Court to take out notice to R4 by way of paper publication. On 05.03.2012, the said IA-1/2012 was allowed and the appellant was permitted to take out notice to R4 by substituted service through Vijaya Karnataka Kannada Daily newspaper, Bangalore edition.
3. Subsequently, appellant has made IA-2/2012 seeking permission of the Court to take out notice to R4 by substituted service through Samyukta Karnataka Kannada Daily newspaper and the said application was rejected on 20.04.2012 as misconceived in view of the order dated 05.03.2012.
4. Today, learned counsel appearing for the appellant requested the Court to grant him time to file an application seeking permission of the Court to take out notice to R4 through Vijaya Vani Kannada Daily newspaper, Bangalore edition.
4
5. In view of the order dated 05.03.2012 allowing IA-1/2012 filed by the appellant and permitting them to take out notice to R4 through Vijaya Karnataka Kannada Daily newspaper, Bangalore edition and rejecting IA-2/2012 filed by the appellant seeking permission to take out notice to R4 through Samyukta Karnataka Kannada Daily newspaper and there is no valid ground to consider the request made by the appellant for grant of time. Consequently, appeal against R4 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
6. In view of dismissal of the appeal against R4 who is owner of the offending vehicle, appeal against other respondents i.e., R1 to R3 who are claimants does not survive and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-