Motor accident claimant's appeal against insurer and owner; appeal against owner dismissed for failure to take steps for notice. The court held the appeal against the insurer alone was not maintainable and rejected the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:11991 MFA No. 5476 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5476 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAMMED NAZEER S/O LATE MOHAMMED HUSSEIN, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.5/1, 1ST CROSS, NEW PATEL PETE, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU-560 002.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GAYATHRI RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSED V/O DATED:25.06.2015)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:10.12.2012
NC: 2024:KHC:11991 MFA No. 5476 of 2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.5359/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE X ASCJ, XXXV ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-16).
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Raghavendra., learned counsel on behalf of Smt.Gayathri Ravishankar., for the appellant has appeared through video conferencing.
Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel for respondent No.1 has appeared in person.
No.2. It was also ordered that if steps are not taken within two weeks, the appeal against respondent No.2 shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.
The appellant has not taken steps in respect of respondent No.2. In view of peremptory order, appeal against respondent No.2 is already dismissed. In the absence of the owner, the appeal against the Insurance company alone is not maintainable. Hence, nothing survives for consideration in the present appeal.
rejected .
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
1 issue framed by the court
Is an appeal against the insurer alone maintainable when the appeal against the vehicle owner stands dismissed for non-compliance?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Mohammed Nazeer S/o Late Mohammed Hussein
The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Divisional Manager, Bangalore Metropolitian Transport Corporation (BMTC)
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
