High Court Karnataka High Court

Koumudi Nursing Home vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 7 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Koumudi Nursing Home vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 7 September, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
 < ,.Kurf@Ld9?: .,/SI¢,£_1rma';V '  ---------- -A "

IN THE IIIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA': C "
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD  " 4- 

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY 01'» SAEP'l'EI.'a'JE'i'::'E3.-.'I:"§»,:2*:1V.) 19 Q " E x 

BEFORE 

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JU_sT:CE.A°.s_; Ed1#,§,m~zA "  

M.F.A. NO. 1 1§eE;'2¥ooT'E-- C 
IVI.F.A No.%'11s05}2oof7fgAME;_

IN MFA N0.11;L9O?j2OO17    if
Kaum aafii  ' 

Bhagat 's1n*gh 'Road  T 

I-Iospet Road _  "

Sirsi;-581 402 A ._

Rep  its Partr1::r" '

 APPELLANT

A(By  J Neeral gi, Adv. )

%TCC«...4EE_LggND;

   '.Qufi.3nta1 Insurance Company Ltd.

 Répresented by its Divisionai Manager
 Kittur Chambers, Main Road,
Karwar.

E

3;

re'



ix)

2. Kumari Nagrna D/0. Malliksab Nadaf
Age: about 15 years, R/0. Gadag Road,
Cement Chall, 61/D, Hubli (RPF)

Since the child is minor is represented by  
her next friend natural mother Bibijan    i
W/0. Me-hboob Sab Nadaf.   it
3. Manjunath S/0. Kareppaswariiy Pujar   2
Age: Major, R/0. Marathikoppag. 
Sirsi. ' _  

(By Sri.A.M.Venk:atesh; Adv i0r:_R;'i1.._ 
Sri. Syed R.H., Advf'f0,1<R-.r_2f;\.A} " 
R.3--notic D/W) " V '

M'P_'Ai'N0'. 1i19'O2/2i'GsQ7_is filed under section 173(1)
of MV Act iagainstf th"e._"j1;1dgment and award dated
2.11.2006   No.97/2000 on the file of the
III "A§dd1;. Civi'1._Judge (Sr.Dn.) 82; CJM, Dharwad,

 0'i§n'ENTs



Ln.)

Hospet Road
Sirsi~581 401
Rep by its Partner
Kumuda Sharma.

(By Sri.JeeVan J. Neeralgi, Adv.)

AND:

1. Oriental Insurance  
Represented by its Divisiar;ai:';--Manager  _

Kittur Chambers, Mainv'Road_',  
Karwar.    

2. Mehboob§.Sa'b__  i\/Ia11iI--i1,1bli' (RP?)

3. Manjunath' S /"of.jKIareVppas_warny Pujar
Age: Major, R'/.0. "NEa_r"a«-th'ikoppa,
Sirsi. =   .'  

" "  RESPONDENTS

(Bylsxrit. }E§.i.:ii\’J;Vi:’\i’e_n1<atesh, Adv for 12.:
'»Sri. Syed-..R;H':,rV for R.2

R". 3:n_oticv V V

MF_A1No.11806/2007 is filed under section 173(1)

_ *"of*i':.4V Act against the judgment and award dated
' "2;i.1_.2"oo5 passed in MVC No.95/2000 on the file of the
..jEII"-VAdd1. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 86 CJM Dharwad,
i"'-..vav_v_arding compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest
6% RA. from the date of petition till realisation.

?

i

am:

« ._ ¢.._. At$ié:’:t,i,Ai&iVfif

These appeals coming on for admission this day,
the court delivered the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellant in both the appeals was respondent

No.1 in MVC l\§os.95/2000 and 97/2000. Theijsaid

claim petitions were disposed of along with

MVC No.96/2000 by a common

02.11.2006.

The 0′ ‘i5′.aVppie.1la–nt”~«Hhezfein who was the 19¢
respondent in the petitions is the owner of

the yfefiiole namely the insurer. The necessity to file the

y’present’ appeals have arisen in View of the indication in

of the judgment of the Tribunal

V . With” regard’; to the nature of the liability to pay the

V” ..e’ompen’sation.

i

3. In this regard, a detailed discussion on

aspect of the matter is not necessary since irrrespeect : ‘

the judgment and award in ll

appellants herein were V before’~._iithisi” tylicourt

W.P.No.15917/2007 on the”very This ‘V V

Court While dispos.ing Writ “lpetition
No.1591’7/2007′ has after noticing
the reasons Tribunal. In
that conteiet, that the Insurance
Compalnyl frornllitlhe liability to pay the

entire cornpensa.tio«n– as-deterrnined by the Tribunal.

=4;>_..iiV:l-lencell’the….p’resent appeals are allowed. It is

_ c’lar’ified,_i’tha.t’ “the entire amount of compensation as

the Tribunal shall be deposited by the 13?

V ‘ re spoi1dent–in surance Company by way of

H”bindleiinnification of the joint liability held against the

walppellant herein. It is stated that the Insurance

6

Company has deposited only 50% of the amount
ordered by the Tribunal and the balance of 50% shall be

deposited by the Insurance Company Within a per;io’dT of

four weeks from the date of receipt of

judgment.

5. In terms of the above, both.theseiva;ojhoea1s4.’_are.. ix

allowed. No order as to costs.

before this Court shall ret’urid_ed*–Tto’ ‘tithe ‘V

appeliant.