The New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt. Jasmine

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAMIMS HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, NO.9, 2^ND FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT. JASMINE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNIL JOHN,

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶15

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SRI. JOHNATHAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNIL JOHN,

¶17

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.20/1, K.G.HALLI MAIN ROAD, ABBIGERE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE-560 090.

¶18

SRI. SIDDU AGED 56 YEARS, S/O SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA, R/O 4TH CROSS, BEHIND RAILWAY STATION, NANJANGUD, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27150 MFA No. 5530 of 2015

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. TAJAVATHY AGED MAJOR, W/O SRI.K.C.MUNISWAMY, R/O NO.1116, 10^TH MAIN ROADM VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE-50

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. A. JOHN BOSCO., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, V/O DTD: 14.09.2017 NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE D/W)

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2205/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,92,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE REALIZATION.

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting aside/modify the judgment and award dated 17.04.2015 passed in MVC No.2205/2003 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:27150 MFA No. 5530 of 2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶32

the appellants. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶33

In spite of service of notice and also after granting reasonable opportunity, respondents are not present. Even on the previous occasion, they were not present. As such, it was posted for further arguments today as a last chance, but still there is no representation

¶34

Learned counsel for appellant contended that the petition was filed by wife and children of Sunil John, who met with an accident on 08.07.1994. They filed the petition in the year 2003 i.e, after 9 years and the reason simply stated by them is that she was under the depression and mental shock. The tribunal considered the said aspect and granted an amount of ₹15,92,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27150 MFA No. 5530 of 2015

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Aggrieved by the said award, Insurance Company preferred appeal and mainly contended that the wife and children are the claimants before the Tribunal. No doubt it is the case of death, however it is for them to approach the court within a reasonable period of time. The reason stated by the claimants for abnormal delay of 9 years is neither sufficient nor convincing to condone the delay. The Tribunal ought to have decided the delay application first when there was serious objection by the Insurance Company. But they have condoned the delay simply without any justifying cause or any relevant documents, in the award of the tribunal. The reasons stated by the claimants on delay aspect are not justifiable. Therefore, this court finds that the tribunal erred in appreciating the facts properly. Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is set aside.

¶38

In the result, this appeal is allowed .

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:27150 MFA No. 5530 of 2015

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The award of the tribunal is set aside in toto. The judgment and award passed in MVC No.2205/2003 dated 17.04.2015 by XIII Additional Small Cause Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru is hereby set aside.

¶43

The amount already in deposit before the High Court and also before MACT is to be refunded to the Insurance Company, digitally.

¶44

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶45

AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Smt. Jasmine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Smt. Jasmine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ningamaraiah Vs Sri. Srikantaiah

Enock Braganz Vs Ganesh K N

Smt. Lakshminarasamma Vs Sri Arasaiah

Sri.Basavaraju Vs Sri.Kumarswamy M S

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Riaz

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Mohammed Hanief