Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Veerabhadraiah

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2021MFA/4775/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awards were dismissed. The court held that under the Supreme Court judgment in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017), the appeal does not survive for consideration.

What did the court decide?

The appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri Veerabhadraiah — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.4774/2012 (MV) C/W M.F.A.NO.4775/2012 (MV) M.F.A.NO.4776/2012 (MV)

¶7

IN M.F.A.NO.4774/2012:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI. K.GOVINDARAJAN. … APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI VEERABHADRAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, S/O G. RUDRAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.534, 2^ND STAGE, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-10. (OWNER OF GOODS TEMPO NO.KA.01/A-370).

¶13

SRI. S.B. PRAKASH, S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHIVALLY VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA. ... RESPONDENTS

¶14

¶15

(BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 08.06.2021)

¶16

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.590/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.10,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶17

IN M.F.A.NO.4775/2012 :

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025. REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI. K.GOVINDARAJAN. … APPELLANT

¶20

(BY SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI VEERABHADRAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, S/O G. RUDRAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.534, 2^ND STAGE, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU. (OWNER OF GOODS TEMPO NO.KA.01/A-370).

¶23

SMT. S.B. PRASHEELA, S/O SRI S.B.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHIVALLY VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA. ... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

¶26

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.591/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,85,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶27

IN M.F.A.NO.4776/2012:

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU-560025, REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI. K.GOVINDARAJAN.

¶30

… APPELLANT

¶31

(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

SRI VEERABHADRAIAH, AGE: MAJOR, S/O G. RUDRAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.534, 2^ND STAGE, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU. (OWNER OF GOODS TEMPO NO.KA.01/A-370).

¶34

SRI K.B. BOREGOWDA, S/O LATE KALA BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHIVALLY VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA. ... RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶36

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.592/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR

¶37

¶38

CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MACT, MANDYA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,93,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶39

THESE M.F.As’ COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

These appeals are listed today for orders. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal is questioned on the ground that the driver was not having the transport endorsement. The learned counsel also does not dispute the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident is a light motor vehicle.

¶42

In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

¶43

case of MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE

¶44

CO.LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company does not survive for consideration. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Veerabhadraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sri Veerabhadraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banappa K G Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Kumar Vs Syed Navaj Ulla

Sri Chennaiah S/O Sri Rangappa Vs Sri Hidayathulla

Smt Gowramma Vs Sadiq Basha

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri M S Devu

M.S. Devu Vs Sri T.M. Krishnamurthy