High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs S Niranjan Shastry on 28 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs S Niranjan Shastry on 28 March, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
 , '_ Anni, V 

IN THE HIGH ooum' OF KARNATAKA,    '

DATED THIS THE 23'"! DAY:-OF'    

BEFORE   
THE HON'BLE MR. A's.Bo.1§3$miA%'V 

'.1!..,l'I' PE-T. . IQN  ,1

 

vulva.

 -3? * 9.34 «,r=m ,.--,g.g;;;;

BETWEEN: _ V _
UNITED INDIAINSURANC-E   "

Divimor-5A1. o?§:g_§y- _ .v .&  _ ._

P.B. NO. 88.;1'13'_;.134-7; IIND-..FLOO'R   '

PUB Bb'iLBIi€GSi,'__A,;A.  '_  

B.H.RQAD.,_   -- ' _'

sHiM0r3A--57?.T,-301  _  _

BY ITS AssIsTAN1>.MANA(sEVRvv----._ -- -  PETITIONER

(BY SR£ OWLHAESHV, z»;.:M 

A  _ s.,N:RANJAN SI-IASTRY
~ T as/-0, LATEEJAGABHUSHANA SI-[_AS'I'RY
%   NEAR,R&JA"SHEKAR TALKIES
A? ' surxaxiamuns,
 SHIMOGA DIST - 577 201

 2 SARITHA W/O MR SANJAY
A '  21 YEARS, N05 856, RUKMINI COLONY
r _ NEAR AJANTHA THEATRE
" BANGALORE - 560042  RESPONDENTS

‘ [ ~ 13:? SR! v s PRASAD, ADV FOR R13

L

]L

“9

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTlC_LE$’226 AND’ ‘
227 OF THE CONS’!’I’!’UT!QN QF !N£*!.’*. PRAYEHGV –a»Q’QU&’;$ ~«.TE%E ” V. V
JUDGEMENT VIDE ANNEXA. AND .CER’P!F’IE’D COW’
AWARD VLDE AMNIEJKLB. BOTH PASEBED 01′! 11.53993′-5’a.’ THE’

PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT owns Trexaubm; Af3!’D”TI-{EV calpiwf

JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSES AT EAN’C-£9-LC«’RE {H’w’b,.?-‘~;’\3’i”.! “953, ‘G?

1996 AND Em. V _ .

THIS PETITION comma <j'r{FoR Htsaléileue THIS DAY.

THE CQUEP MAQE THE

-11.: mtéii;1Lezi;},:.2-!:2.e’¢.-re-;f.:¢ ‘fififi’:”i”1:’: thia Cain-t

as-amuu”””§ -:i_ paaaeti in

3-io}*5:’i96.”e % _H.Mfhe mar and the char’
Judge 5:. has awmtled the sum
of R§..5,570f– costs and interest at 6% p.a.

to the dais: of payment. The said

the respondent Noa.1-andefl-therein

jeiqfijr among whom the ie t_h_e

‘ V _ first

A The gtievanee put ibrth by the petifiocnerv-lnaunnee

C …_(3§:mpany is that the mar was not juatified in fixing the

on the insurance Company also, -tfihe veh_1’t_2k @-

” J5-“””

question was a pnvate’ ear, but the name had uBed_ V’

taxi and therefore, the name was teru 1» T.

Insurance Policy. The judgment

along with the judglnent

52,11-:a<e:o6= In ;g_,.n-gm: es the at:-.a.–
mm fios.2i9oj_r;4, and 2195104.

3133- 131- appenh' __ . A oo-

oxtlinate disposing ofthe said-

appeale on upheld the contention of the
such, has uet aside the
judgtnent ogatnst the Insurance Gmnpany and

:.—J_ – —o—‘

. the eholl nmr the et..fi.:I.p-..-z-.a*.is.-.2-. to

A t….’– -2……-“-‘ vie’.’.-‘ uu””‘5 -‘-can-:1 takeii o”” i %

.L’I__’._ I1_ __ __4.

or’ “we of mm uourt, in preaent idea, the

piztfoxtia by the insurance Company would have to be

inmn-mu”‘”‘”‘ arnd iniofar as the oaunpenenfion mvatlieci ‘by the

mar, the owner shall alone be liable to pay the

claimants and the judgment and

the Insurance Company liable in

With the above stands
allowed. No older as