Allowed

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Mallikarjunappa

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023MFA/1387/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited against a Judgment and Award of the Motor Accident Claims Awards Tribunal, Tumkur. The appellant challenged the liability fastened on it due to a disputed insurance policy number. The High Court held it was a disputed fact whether the policy originated from the appellant and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Judgment and Award dated 07.11.2001 in MVC No.1042/1994 passed by the II Addl. Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumkur, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:42510 MFA No. 1387 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1387 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.9 10, HOMI MODI STREET BOMBAY 400001 BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AT NO.44/45, 4TH FLOOR LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER NO.1

¶9

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O SIDDARAMAPPA GADAD MAJOR R/O AASUNDI VILLAGE RANEBENNUR TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:42510 MFA No. 1387 of 2013

¶15

G PREMAKUMAR

¶16

NO.52, 1ST MAIN, C L LAYOUT HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE-560029

¶17

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CITY BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR INDIAN MUTUAL BUILDING N R SQUARE BANGALORE REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶18

M/S RANJITH ROADLINES P B NO.6, METER NO.5 CBD, BELAPUR, NEW BOMBAY THANA.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI.A M VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 R-1 SERVED, NOTICE TO R-4 HELD SUFFICIENT, NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.11.2001 PASSED IN MVC NO.1042/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,00,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42510 MFA No. 1387 of 2013

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance

¶26

Company Limited who is stated to be insurer of Lorry No.MCY-2288, questioning the liability fastened on it on the ground that the Insurance policy particulars produced are not pertaining to the Lorry No.MCY-2288. However, the Tribunal without looking into it, fastened the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company.

¶27

It is stated that the claimant was travelling in the Lorry No.KA-01-2922 and the accident is between this lorry and another lorry No.MCY-2288. The Tribunal has fastened the liability of 50% on the owner and insurer of Lorry No.KA-01-2922 and 50% liability on the owner and insurer of Lorry No.MCY 2288 jointly and severally.

¶28

The claimant has produced Insurance Policy particulars stating the number of Insurance Policy as 121800/31/0188, which is pertaining to a Premier Padmini Car, but the lorry bearing No.MCY-2288 is involved in

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42510 MFA No. 1387 of 2013

¶30

the accident. Therefore, on this ground, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

¶31

When the appellant is contending that the

¶32

Insurance Policy relating to Lorry No.MCY-2288 is not issued by the appellant, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner. On this aspect, whether the appellant has issued Insurance Policy towards Lorry No.MCY-2288 and whether the Insurance Policy produced by the owner of lorry is issued by the appellant-Insurance Company is a disputed fact to be adjudicated. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶33

In the result, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶36

ii. The judgment and Award dated 07.11.2001 passed in MVC No.1042/1994 by the II Addl.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42510 MFA No. 1387 of 2013

¶38

Sessions Judge and MACT, Tumkur, is hereby

¶39

set-aside.

¶40

iii. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶41

iv. Liberty is reserved to the parties to lead oral or documentary evidence or both, if they are so advised.

¶42

v. The driver, owner and Insurance Company are permitted to file their respective written statements.

¶43

vi. All the contentions are left open.

¶44

vii. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶45

viii. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 21.12.2023, without expecting notice from the Tribunal.

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:42510 MFA No. 1387 of 2013

¶47

ix. The Tribunal shall decide the case and dispose

¶48

of the matter within a period of three months from 21.12.2023, in accordance with law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

bnv

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Mallikarjunappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Mallikarjunappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Andusignh Adoptive Vs Shri. Jayshing

Smt. Nagaveni W/O Mallappa Dodamni Vs Sri. Siddaramappa Siddappa Byadgi

Sri.Basappa S/O Bhimappa Neelammanavar Vs Shivamallappa S/O Bhimappa Neelammanavar

Sri S Murthy Vs Smt Arogya Mary

Smt Pungudi Vs Mr Karthik K a

The Manager Vs M.A. Sadiq Pasha @ Adil