nmmmn rams THE 17E may or nmnnH¥2fifi§fi,
BEFORE
THE HQNIBLE HR. Jvsriamé 3 é fifiaénfig : x
WRIT PETITION No.14éa47fiF :b§§¥jG$€§c}R_
uununuru-u—-In-up
1 ma U!-JIT}3D’_IE%DIP1; Iflafiksamcm. -co LTD
13::-i main G:=s*:%:E.. =
EUILEING, no.25_, :n’a’.c::. .1=:.o’Jn=.::; .__
Emrsmioafi mi» r:-.r:11,” $3′? I1’T”5
Mnwfifififi” % “= %*»V j’ ~
%_=$ ::[;~v~ «V , fv W;.. PETiTTfifiER %%
aim’ s2’~=::r ;.:fe~2*.1$rn1a3:s:»n’c;t;a-r:12:.__:~io1%.._2R1 A H 1m:¢xMnsH’,-
1 a~;r_ %r:.-::»:*u’V~w-.V *
EH12}. A”¢’E’hLP1.P’PPa. REDIW, 35 YEARS _
V:-am. i’3!.*.5…’§_?’f’_!-5?’: ififii A mum, aback
A »_a:§i.Hgate.L.-:1:-‘:3
‘s2’éhfi1unnn1
. syn PERUMAL-
=wn. 446, 14TH cnoss
‘I. E;.n:.!€F;n-.3339-.!3,HF_3;
Aunxsonz pus?
“x’:h%EGP:ia”-3’F’».E
:-4:’ , J
3 MUNR. VH3-Zifi
155.953 WIIJAYPLN, 34 ‘(E335
FL-‘PL Hill. #253, 7.1 Efifififi
ELIYEHAGRR, SPLRAIKI GATE _
-3.2′. MERGER, BANGALORE 560. I§75′..Y
2
4
.. ‘nspaunnnf§L’f
HQTIQE T9 “Z_ AHD R
THI3 WRIT PETITION Is FILED umnfiafégwignss
225 RD E97 0? THE CGF§TTTUTififi GF*INfi$3f?R.¥IfiG
TD euaeu THE auneusnw AND .AWhRD “Eh3SED’ BY, THE
mwon ACCIDENT CLAIMS Tnxagguan, .ms°zjx_:..o’R.E,-_1:s;
no. 2435-5’T,a’99, ETD. “1.Cu’$!;’G5″VIIJ’E«,AI-3;:(..;t’:,.’x_
PETITION -:o1I»1IA&4zcV;”–.tT:a”r§: ‘mii*~.vP.RE.i;:3h’i’NAnY.”
HEARING IN ‘E’ ensue THIS nay; THE CQUBT EADE_THE
FDLLGEIMG:
0EEQh E R”-tf-‘
:-..:—-
Though the in Grdera to
take at~aa’1;;$m.’i11::__ra;s§écté:”t$f..,,i;fr§{3f>=c>n:u1ents 2 and 3,
award that before the
4:;-.t::.1y7fV ‘ thfj” fix-“st: res-pen..’.ient-In5ur=e.n,.e
£2-smpes.-ny ‘ _i~ petitioner herein had
_r:c:sr1t«Lz4<"':*-;nI;_§a-ci.,'1:h:Asa?v_ put forth by the claimant.
'-':../':"I"'::—ma "–l5aartive'-ti""¢ounsel fan: the petiticvnar has
"' = fjjil ed a meme: fur di spansation .
3-.ccart..Zi..g1y z1:;sti«:_a is: dispensed.
Since a short: point arises for
cnnsideratiun; the petéitiun i taken up for
dispaaal mud disposed of by this order.
5.:
: have heard Sri Shi’af.”az.*ii2-gfiqwda.
learnad counsel appearing far tha pafiiEiQfimig
#. The grievance pfit:fditfiV§y0tfiai1;&®nnd J
counsel an behalf @f,thh”get;fii&fiér is thfit
tha H%ET was nat jua§$£iéé,i# hfildifig that tha
insuxmnca Ca¢Q$y ,i§’fii§é§ia to pay the
campenaaticn.; 駒:§fi§£: fifi§f’ instance and
thare&ft§E;$_g£§nfiiyg i;ib§£ty’ ta recavar the
Bameimrizl . V ‘
u n_ E
_ n-;1.,….fl ..”.r,…;’=.. __ 1.1.- …_.L.’ -_ .t_ _…
J}’ ARV .’flfifl U& hufi yuL¢u¢uuuL $3: nu
_~§dqfiht EhQ.;gelicy’ had been, isauad, since a
* ghfiqué had been made out by tha owner of the
.”VvéhifiJ% in that regard but the cheque had
“b6un§ed and apprapriata notice had been isaued
I-I;
» I3
the annex of the ve.icle= nannita t –
, _a. L-1…. ‘ll!.I|IP’I’l 1.-…. …..,-.._…1..- ………. 1…… A-1…
V3.2 L p LIL? L’l.HI.L.o -I. flflfi ‘ILL Uflg -LI ‘3.-‘ULIZI LU Lilli
cnncluaiwn that the Insurance Company is
liable to pay.
,1 %’——–IP
6. ‘lfhe learned counsel <:ontent1$'~: 'j:1:iia1 15
nut: cans car thuosa ceases ti1'£-'£~a _"?w'aB
vi-alation c-f teams cvfi-);3'i::l:it;:'§r;'A
itself waa mat c3::Ti ., t:hI,9«. of J
auaidsant and a…-=== pa}? 9: I.»-r¢1…1:
cazmm: "ma madm. H
'3' .. ::t;:u:*.._ ':§A3A}.'1¢=1-,; 2 v'cé'_:"E the contention
ad=rar;L:¥é?;i., iga &tnc'd counsel for the
1_:_m't§'i 'L? iiésna "- Ii . , jg! $311331 of the judgment and
aéfsatd }-_::a-.s~5,';s<#.". tlfza T'.'s-.'.31–…'.."'"." =.-.:ul::1 ir…….-**h’ce=-.*.:e twat
the “*«s;-nc<:r:j.»:1a1i'~: '~..1¥i.s.c1 nccurra-:3. on fi:':'-.I.'i6.1§$'9.
1231i'-a~v–.p«slicy had been issued in favour of
c=«f the vehicle ta be valid fmra
"'%'<:ae:_'..£'~$'§;':,f.c39 1:-:3 03.04.2000, the cheque drawn on
Cnmm-ans Hank, came to he dishcmoured
.._. .. _-…. .ilt s-n.-nu I
'xfu..I.. 'ml-a..cJ.t.' u-IE aufflflififlt .'f'\.'i.4"I'h'.".s G11 Th9
Insauranc-ta Campany therefore, issu-and a notice
on 2fi.O4.l9EI9 tn the uuwnar cf the vehicle
irxtixruating that 1:119 policy is cancelled in
1
J}
View of the ahaqua being bounc9drg_ This
defence had been taken by the Ifi3fi:ance
Campany bafure the HECT. The Mhflf hi? hétiéad
the said defence a$&”*h§€«{§éh§fl’toHgth§t
concluaimn that the noting §ai&pta_;h@#§tbaan ‘
issuefl by the Insvrafice Cémyfim [IE fiat
as aarved on its §fifi§:tVtEhi3″c9fis1usion cf
tha MAST is attataéufi fat t$§*teasan that even
thmuqh tfig mflfiét ti thfi fitflicle was a party
hefaré fiAfi%{§fia fig: fififisarad not taken up such
;«”¢cfit%fiti;n’ thfit “the; natice had not been
fi’1″‘ a
nunnuun f u–u-no
-5 g:=a1-‘Ln.-r-§’ ‘~i-..«’-L =.’!– 7.5m” and 1-‘ha?-a’F’n’mn__
4- I-ru-~rdr’V~I I-‘.5-V . g.a.an…_o.u. ‘_ Inuaavur-Q-‘\l¢-‘Ib’-1-‘Ur
preéumptionAcbu3& not have bean &rawn by the
fl5H$fiT, Tfiérefare, ths reasoning adopted by the
“~uAfiTiwfiuld indicate perveraity on the faca of
ttit’ténfi3Vtherefura, the judgment insufar aw
‘figifig the liability on the Insurance Comany
” 6-..–. .-in-.m-1.:-m-nu’: 6- 4 mm” aw-sxtrupsaa znvrqoto.-as-urn!” J”I$’U’hU|Il||u+’ ‘nu.
‘ . URI’ Kin ‘h-‘ 33$ -5-: ‘U U-{£5 -I-35$ HLQSLMV all”!-I” ‘LL10 ‘I-la-L5-LIAN!’ KI SIT
sustaineé.
8. ficcordingly ta the said. extent, the
judgment and award dated 10.G2.20Q5 p§aBad in
rm: ma.249′:r/1999 is modified. I’Ei::”i:’gA V]§i«§i::$:_”‘_tf1a,j:
the aacond :eapondent~¢wher of tfi§C?§hicia i$k*
liable ta pay the cap§n5@tian a$axded hQxtha
a.’hl”h’-I
ma ‘1’ to. the :.:la1’1″:=”‘~i:… “~._
with th§d,”a£$§é fl ficfii£i¢atiana, the
patitiqn §tan&$;d;fip§é§du@flf: No order an to
custfii u ”
f5JE{“x “~HHv …..