1 M.F.A.3327/08(MV]
INTHEPHGHCOURTOFKNMWUAKAATBMWHHQRE
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER O42«0jQ9_{~~.. _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 30.332? /' 2-0023' 7
BEUNEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. '-
NO.9, LINGARAJU COMPL "
GANDHI BAZAR _;vIA1N .ROAI},--«
BASAVANGUDI BA;NGALRQT:3~5':3C)AAQO4,
NA'I'IONAL'INSURANC.E CO..f=.LTD'.,«,
REG1ONAi;,Q*FF1=cE:N--O. 1'44,' A
SUB}L4f3AM..CTOMPLEX. .
M.G1RO_AE), BA1\I(3£;é\§1;«OR--}:',:+OI'v,:
ByVIT's.VN:ANAG19;R_,_ * "
O' ...APPELLANT
[By S:-i'.AO'".
é..\....N_..1§-2 _
'ERR, 'R. RAGHU,
' AGED 22 YEARS,
'' " R'/AT_KASHI LAYOUT,
4KA(;.<.}A1;i-PURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BAN'GiALORE A 560 082.
MANJEGOWDA
SfliAdJEGOWHM&
" ' 'MAJOR. JUNJENAHALLI,
2 M.F'.A.3327/08[MV)
SHANTHIGRAMA.
HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT.
[By Sri. N. S. BEAT ADVOCATE FOR R1) ' " V' " '
THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED:'U/S['i73(1)~: oi?" iv.._V.' "ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT «'AwAR1j'
06.10.2007
PASSED EN M.V.C._ No. ‘R740/20o6.”.i0N’ THE FIL
OF’ THE XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT or SMAi;:;”‘cAEJSES;’~’
MEMBER, MACT, METROPOLITLAN – ‘BA1§IGALORE.
(SCCH.NO.14), AWARDING——— A-. “‘–<.:_oMPI3;NSA:I*I0N OF
RS.1,64,120/– mm COSTS-'_&EN'1'EREST @ 6% RA. FROM
THE DATE OF PETETIONJTILLS-R}33ALI_SATIOR1.
This a1:J.vpr3f&:ilv.,corri'iii"g kiciiring this day, the
court if '
Jags M}: N T
Thei_nSurii11Sé.'.cofi€_peiny has filed this appeal against
th¢ei_;f"£i'm:i.ings §:i*._{1;ie iribunai, Saddlirig the liability on the
, inSu;a_nc¢ gfompany inter alia contending that the occupant
1'_Ii- .j'_Lhe"'iiiS,u1iéd* }3rivate vehicle was not covered under the
3 M.F.A.3327/08{MV)
2. I have heard Sri O. Mahesh, learned counsel for
insurance company and Sri N. S. Bhat. learned c_ot1n-syeicfor
claimant.
3. It is seen from the impugned p_a’ward. that, in’ aji,
three claim petitions were filed by 017
The Tribunal has accepted
on 06.10.2007. The insurance (appellant) herein
challenged the award this court in
MFA No.3329/2:003, hy this court on
29.07.2003′ iwrendered in MFA
Nos.45V5,z07″~cjiwj’V’1.a921./0s:’afia..704is/06 on 29.07.2008.
4. court’ the similar order in
M.F.A.3328/V08 filed Va.gair;.stA”‘: the order in M.V.C.
N0v§’7″?–4A1/ pin the”c’onnected claim petitions, finding
of the the liability of insurance company
attained finaiityf, Therefore, the insurance company can
re.–_agitate~.t1u1e_ matter in this appeai.
5 M.F.A.332’7/O8[MV]
by this Court in M.F.A.3328/08 and M.F.A.3329/OS, this
appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their costs. ._’
RKK/–