Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt Pushpalatha on 17 September, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated: This the 17m day of September 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE V.JAGANNATE}§§NT "'3
M.F.}\.N0.10456/2068 =
BETWEEN
THE NEW INDiA ASSURANCECO. L"rD.;= - _
DIVISIONAL OFFICE--XII. eMAmR.._c0MPLEx,VA,.e3
KIADB MAIN ROAD'."e~PEENYA,"- _
BANGALORE-58.
REP BY ITS DNISIONM, MANAGER;.;'~.
-- 1 T, APPELLANT
(By Sri c R 1; . R' R
sMT"PUsHPALATPP§§"..'eV
, AGED ABOUT 32'-YEARS,
~ 0 LATE «B. Y___»S{JJALENDRA.
_ :<::Jr~.r;.--41\::/';m__I.JtTvEN1
'AGEI3 ASU_.UT 12 YEARS,
/0IiLA:'1iE'B V SUJALENDRA.
MAST°ER DINESH
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS.
R ~ : 4_ 3/0 LATE B V SUJALENDRA.
SMT GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
W/ O LATE VENKATAPPA.
THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS.
REP BY MOTHER 8: NATURAL GUARDIAN. SMT PUSHPALATHA THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ALL ARE R/AT BIDANAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
5 SR} M GURUSIDDAPPA S / O MAHANTHAPPA.
MAJ OR, R / AT COTTONPET.
MAGADI TOWN.
(By Sri M V MAHESHWARAPPA; ADVTOR R1. . I " A' SR1 G V DAYANANDA, ADV. FOR R5.) ' THIS MFA FILED;:'_U/OE{I)Ij3R"%1;3i RULE I{D) ' CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER I5ATp*jI>.v"I'5';o4}2'§f3O§3' 'PASSED IN MISC.NO.15/2005' V__ONi"THI3:1 OI? ._':'(:IVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 3: "MACT, KUNIGAL.
DISMISSINO_TI{I.I?:_».I3I:*I*IT:OAI§»A .I%*II...f;D" ':11/'ORDER 9 RULE I3 R/W SEC I5i"' cx~3g_: I>c ASIDE EXPARTE AWARD MADE INv1\/[VC NQ§8Q8_/04 DT--~22.O2.2005. ; THIS APPEAL" COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS V. _;)A'&;;.;Ti-1,}? C'QUR'l'HD'ELiVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'V[fFJUDOMENT '{'k:iS~}ippea1 is by the Insurance Company ,::qiIr3StiOV'I'Ii..1'1g the Order of the MACT in dismissing No.15/2005 filed by the appellant Seeking for ? ""réstOrati0n of M.V.C. NO.8O8/O4. ./3?:
'V O. I I' 3
2. Submission of the learned counsel Sri. C.R.Ravishankar for the appellant is that the court below erred in dismissing the Miscellaneoiis Application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 because in the original proceedings _.before:,l.l.:'the it Tribunal in lVI.V.C.No.808/04 appe,ll"ant'_was--..n:ot:,__phi' served with the notice and fact='t7l'als'ol.'l established in View of the claifnarits the address of the appeillant as New India Assurance Company,»- Lakshmi Complex, __ ,6"-$a.ngalore, whereas the appellantislladdresstis of Mayur Complex, KIADB Main; 'Road, Eiangalore.
V in the face of the error committed by the respondents in not taking out notice to the l3"»-'««___7-appellant to the address at Peenya, Bangalore, there it not-'proper service of notice on the appellant and as the appellant sought for setting aside the it exparte judgment granted by the MACT. Unfortunately, the court below did not take note of ,?i/ 4 these factors but dismissed the miscellaneous petition itself.
4. Having heard the learned counsel respondents in regard to the above submission..ta'nd it on a perusal of the impugned:-'orders 'def teou-rt below, I am satisfied that there vvas no proper"sierviC\e of notice on the appellant. as"'such the 'co_i;1rt°.>bleloW was in error in dismissing tlie Mliscpellaneouls' petition. fiied under Order 9 Rule3"Cl.lPV.C.;.:_:and.lti1erefore the judginenit" i~;%,i1§:;ieEa;is tit.;M.v}c;N¢$.8o8/2004 without giving to contest the case cannot be sustainediinllaw and hence the same is set and «the rnatter is remanded to the MACT to »vlop.p"ortunity to the appellant herein to contest vthejpcase on merits more so in view of the counsel submitting that no liability will it the insurance company as the deceased was a l pleaner in a passenger bus.
} <_,/ Appeal is therefore allowed and both partieSTa3.*e directed to appear before the MACT on and within three months of the appearaheweov the ' parties, the MACT shall disposeliof feast:-;_e .é Amount in deposit be refunded to the . DV1"Z