_ E _ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BE FORE ' THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN 5HANTANAE??OU'§:A:F.§"A.V WRIT PETITION No.1241o/2010 m.«..fm7. A E' K BETWEEN: H.B. Eshawarappa S/0 H.S.Basavalingaia31 Aged about 70 years R/0. Doddagarudi Beedi _ é_ Hassan ' .."f...*PET1TIO'NER' (By Sri S.C,Vi3'aya Kurrmafi,'_a_13sd\.*..V'..}»V::' E' AND: 1. The"Orienta[-- Ir:s'u.rang:e'-Company Ltd. Branch Ofafice',* #'37°' »FVI"o*:>r S._\/_.NE[a'ya,"B;M';.R0ad"° fiiassan " V-.I33ow_--.eat ~Shivanar':§'a'ppa Complex FIoor',.S'ub31ash Square " ._ Rep"vby_~:.,i.§s'.§3s"anch Manager. 2. "i\£a;=:e'e.r'.'\:}1med S/e Mtoheddin Ali A. Aged" about 37 years Cfo G. Khaleed Ahmed M "'E»i'0.164, 4"' Main Road Vinayakanagar, Tumkur Tumkur District. ..Responden_ts (By Sri S.V. Hegde Muikhand and Sri C). Mahesh Advs., for R1; V " ' Sn C.R. Gopaiaswamy & Associates, Adv., for R2) This writ petition is filed under..Artieies"Qfiedandw227 of it " . the Constitution of India, praying to quash the ~:oI'--c1__er--s passed by the learned Presiding Officer, 4??" r F'ast»._T1'ackV C-Qtifli; Tumkur in MVC i\io.11-45/2006 dated 24.3,2o'1»o'~ as 'per; AnneXure~ H . This writ petition coming hearing in B-Group, this day the Vcogirt Inade tiu1.'e I"~:\.l._i&o\2\ring*;~.'. A Petitionez?fiiheibztei of the vehicle involved questioned the order dated'.:_ -by the MACT, Tumkur, in MVC. No.1 145/zooe. 2. The recor_ds._re«v~eai that the second respondent
‘”‘~«.._Afiie;d*. wcicNo.1i1~is,12oo6 before the 4″” FTC, Tumkur
compensation in respect of the injury
sustained’t5o.y*i:;him in the road accident that occurred on
V’-».8.4.1’99A8. Petitioner is the registered owner of the
i~’>
vehicle involved in the accident. First respondent is
the Insurance Company with which the vehicle is
insured. The petitioner herein who is respondent”-l$l_o..v1
before the Tribunal below has filed
objections inter alia contend_i_ng._ytha_tW’vth:ejv»’V’v’eh:iAcle_V
involved in the accident in–s:ured_
consequently, the first *–.if’:’e’spon.dent the C’
Insurance Companyvwas vi.ca’r’io:us”l’y._’held’liable to pay
the amount. The saiVd.”Vpoivn’t:’Vvvas.A’_’.dvi’s_puted by the
Insurance CQvrnpaj’ny. Thereafter_”-thheiflpletitioner herein
filed an a direction to the
Insurance ‘Comp_an..y–to-~..pr0’duce the insurance policy in
respge’ct…of4.Vthe_”vehliclel in question. The advocate
behalf of the Insurance Company has
A””fileld__a “irifev_rnol’::’b’efore the Tribunal below that the policy
V . in cj”ues’t:ion;vvas not issued by the Insurance Company
therefore the Insurance Company cannot
proldluce the policy. The said submission made on
V5
-4-
behaif of the Insurance Company was recorded and
the evidence of the respondents was treated a.s.cios~ed
and the matter is posted for argun’ients._j1
order is calied in question in thisi
3. During the coursec.iof_.hea’ring, a m’esijh.ov’is _}fiied_:”i.
by the iearned advocate Coiiibtehaiiff of the
Insurance Companyi-«tiir’st’ aiong with a
copy of the which
cleariy shows was infact
insured. ;,f;:iryst..jresC’pon:d.e.n:t—Insurance Company.
Thus, is4’_co”ntention of the petitioner
herein i.e”.i«-..thhe owner the vehicle which is invoived
EaVccj_denht}”tvh.at’ the said vehicie is insured with
the’ ‘Insti:_ranc.e ‘Company is just and proper. However,
at,fa%isev_.’sui3n’iission was made on behaif of the
”’..,Insurance Company to misiead the Tribunai. The
TV”‘V’reS,E.J:’¢’ndent Insurance Company is a State within the
ir”
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. it should
not have made false submission before the ..Trii:’o..u’nVal
below by misleading the Tribunal below.
the following order is made:–
The impugned order
quashed. The insurance before this
Court by the Insuravnce’Com;Q’a’.n’y.’L’vi:s:’taken on record.
The first re9_F»”0.._nde:n’t”‘:’–i5:. costs of
€10,000/-_ in View of the
false Insurance Company
before the “costs so deposited
shall be disburswedin fav_oAu.r:of-~'”the petitioner herein.
allowed accordingly.
3d/-l *
Judge