M/S. UNITED INDiA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. PARVATI
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K GOVINDARAJULU
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the short subject placed before the Court for consideration the facts in detail are not discussed. The subject urged by the learned Advocate is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court K.M.Ponams case, wherein the Apex Court has held that…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJULU M.FA. No.20927 of 2009 IMVI BETWEEN: M/S. UNITED INDiA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.1563, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER (BY SRI.C.V.ANGADI, ADV.,) .APPELLANT AND:
PARVATI, W/O MALLAPPA KUMBAR, AGED: 45 YEARS, 0CC: NIL, R/O CHINCHOLI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM
ASKAR 5/0 DILAWAR DHANGE, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: BUSINESS, 5 RIO CHINCHOLI, TQ: RAIBAG, (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-23/M-4054) (BY SRi. MOHAN A. HIREKODI FOR RI) (R2 SERVED) RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 24.09.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.2049/2003 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MACT., GOKAK, SITflNG AT RAIBAG AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,000/- ALONGW1TH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the liability fastened in MVC 2049/2003.
2. The only ground urged by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company is that the liability of the company is restricted accordipg to the policy issued to only 9 persons whereas the Tribunal has directed to pay for 11 persons. So the company is not 3 liable to pay the compensation. So the company has to be exonerated from paying the compensation.
In view of the short subject placed before the Court for consideration the facts in detail are not discussed. The subject urged by the learned Advocate is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court K.M.Ponams case, wherein the Apex Court has held that it is for the company to pay to third party and then recover and the company cannot absolved from paving the compensation. Amount awarded is Rs.5,000/-. So MFA itself is not maintainable. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal for payment. Sd! JUDGE GH
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.