High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri G Rama Rao S/O Sri Ravi Naidu on 9 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri G Rama Rao S/O Sri Ravi Naidu on 9 September, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
.. {Q

13 THE HEGK CGIIRT QF' KAR1\IATAKA AT BAQEGALORE

§ATED THIS THE 931 {DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008

BEFQRE

THE HQN'BLE MR.J¥.§S'I'I(3=§:'. SSBHASH B,AD_35T   '  *- 

1'aLF'.A.NC3.941?'i2Q07 avgv 3

BETWEEN:

United india Insurance

Cempany L-imitad,

Regional Office,
Shankaranarayana Building, V  
25, I Flour, M. G. Roafi, =  '
Bangalore-563 00 1...

RepIt';se11ted byits   ._   
Dep11tyM:a3'mger.    V   '  ; .A'PP¥7}LLANT

% BV;.,.§3aE_iu;""&£i_u}V_ A

1. Szi. G. R9.ma«Ra<3-- V ._ ._
S-lo.  Ravi Péaidu, 4'
Ageci about 34~Vye'ar$,'V--_
R[at,}.¥'o.'1Q2, I Main,

1. 9 V.     ..... .. V
 Ba1:2.ga.i;":r¥:,.  . 

Mr.  A."

S] C», A;nth0n3-:'j_ 

Alukkapaitimasfl House,
' K1Itt§1E--flO(II1'«7 Post, '§"°]3rissur Distxict,

 ;%:s:xa1a Staib. . . RESPONDENTS

{By Nwtndm Gmvcia, Adv. for R1)

“*1*:a:s rsxma. is fileci U23. 1?3{1:» 9:’ MV Act againsfi tile

:LL4-..’tJu€EgVment and awani dated 16.G3.I”.(3(3? passed in EVIKFC
339.4066] 2005 an the £3.53: of the ill Add: Judga, C0311: of Small
Causas, fviember, 1MfaCT , Iviefrzfipoiitan firea, Eangaiore,

E S€I1CiH.§’Jn of R5§.5€};f}{}(3′! ~ with
.i11’i6i”&T:$3t 5% 9.491. fnnxi the date of peiifigm {:33} C}&’:”:f1OSi§i.

This apgleal coming en for admission. {big day, tee C’=:>11:’?:
delivered the foiiowiiig:

game

This appea} is by the I:;eura:r:2_ce Cemgaaey against. the

judgment and award in MVC !\§e.4G€26,l;?3{){):’5 ciaied E6.3.20{§?;

2. Reseendent. claimant had sought fer .

Rs.:'”:”»,I30,{){)G/- with 1&6 ilxtereet on the gyound .’tiie’?–,:’_}:*,eV”‘ha€§

suffered 111371113? in a road accident 033:1 5: ‘«

the rash and negligent driving 0f Anii3:_1ianee.b’ea1ing;;”:f€<3;:.

4 151.

3. Before the tryihunai, got: himself

examined as PW}. ané also get On behalf

ef the Ineureiiee ‘examineci and Ex$.R1 I0 R3
were produced, V

4. igiibunai “e:1.?}}preeia:ic>n of the evidence fi’f:!11§;ed

c011’2§enSai;io;e_vef.l%S,’5{3_,@€)G/ – “£!;13$,h iniezest at me rate of 5912:.

5′.’ *.l’}1e ei1i§?:—- eeifitentien of the ieerned Cetmsel far the ‘
‘?’,£;1sm~aV nee.44Cen”;§;;afij} is em. the claimaxn; did 330′: had the valid

4. tee d_1’i2se”fl1e fianegert vehicle and he was only having the

K dfifiie light meter vehicle. He further submitted $313!,
.T ihe_ §;~0}.ie}»’ ccwere the vehicle of miscellaneous and special type

«lfiiéjer the package ecriiey and $353. the peliey it is mentiened as

embulancee in {.2113 regerrd, he 33.59 relied en the epeeificatiszm of

I

tvpa r;:e.f meter Vehicies and appendix-X ta E115 Solatmm Scheme

1989 and 5=;:ubm_5.*'{.tr:d ?:h.:~A, traflgpert zrahiclfi i:r3.=:E!.1€1€s E1115

Amhuiance. Reijplng 0:}.

{E1536 grexrisiens, ha submittegl

the vehicle is Ambuiancfi, it deemed ts be the trz«~1z2S;::§.:;§1: vé§:i’«L;f%;’:’€

and is érive the said vehicle, 3 ;3ers:1§i£’.£»§.M much bsfgm the
accidfimf teak piazza. He. furtE1e5:r..$u¥.)r1;it§~:£i f;”§1a!i;f§i£i’ View cf the
same, the txiibuzaal wéis i:1_4f’1x27i1§ thriz liability 031 the

Exasmazxcc {lemgaaiig *.=:%3’_.t§10ui’ ==3e;_i%fizr;_g”i:1’15 of tbs licence.

5, Lea1Li3ed’– -»;i1f’ar 111$ gtlaimazzt submittsd
that, the dfiffi31{L’é” glgieééixibuxzal was that, tbs driver
cffiflge Ofl’fiRj§§ii1g.\,?€hié§§ 13;} licence. He mfied 911 ths fszzsiixzgs
u§:;n£ the _§udgme11t and submittfid that, the

1nsuré;3.¢é’._C9§xfi§_fl;§rVigéifl I101; pmvetd as to whether the vehicle is

‘.—tra1;sp«3rt”*vehi;51£: light motor vehicles He also submitted
1’;i<:r.,.=1*z=;-flg produced by the Insurance Cgmpany clearly
it is valid up to '.20 36. He further submitted that,
{ha insurance Company proves that the vehiclfi involved
vehicle and 1zn1s$s it takes such a defence before

V {he tribunal, it is 119': open to the: Czempany 1:0 take such 3

dezfencrs befere {big Court.

_/r’

-4-

7. Tha Regisfiation Certificate: mquiras type sf vehicie to

he mentiened in it. No doubt in fl:}3E: §;£1S’..1I’a;{1Ci”§z<éd._ 7-IA

maxim: 91' 110:. It has come in th.zi[V_;e's.-:if:i:neLi€:v-
driving $33.5 Qfisnding velxicle had 1:':-:*,e:._:;T£L:7V¥§A;»v:_i_'t'Vxgt_;f22§s £31': 1'§} _1A:e Vfiisurézr
or Ensurancs Cempany '£9 but in this
case, the insurance {he type: of
vehicls and the pegfisfigxfi vzéxs 's:,e%e;*,'.r:i.:"i<:1€: had 3 xggiid
licence or meat. in arr: raised for the
fast time. W:3$3: 10u.t' axzé evicience, the case of
the apyeléant Cfififléi E find no reason ta iI1'se:rf€:1'e
xviflg the a3£§§§Iid.;A. V V

géggxpgal fails and same is dismissed

LT'h.+'3-T';;;_%§§.s:§ei:£1€,bV_:l1§t}:i:3p9sit be éransf-ttrmti is the ttzibxmal.

Sd/-

Judge

=24 P} —