IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS TI-IE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2019* Q
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE D.V.si»:IYLENij'R'A71§;1j1w1Ag;
AND
THE HONTBLE MR.JUs11CE'"1s;,N.KEsiaAVAi$:A§§A¥ANA %
MISC.CVL.1I_?'::9'2»/21£)09 8:' ~ . T_
MISCSCVL. 1.1'793,/2009 IN '
MFA 'NO. 7A389;{2%00w7fiy;V3_»»
_B...ET__§lZ.VflE..E.__N_;
COMPANY;-Lin, ~
BRANCH OEFECE, " .,
THOGARIHUNKALI::BUILI)ING.' '- V
B.M.R._OAD__ --
CHIKMAGALUR' .j'-~ % " "
NOW REE?RESE1\1TEI3--E3Y.___
DIVISIONAL 0.FF1cE',A._ "
B.H,.RAoD," ._ ' ' '-
SHIMOAGE,
' V' - REPRESENTED BY"1*1*S
» V1j'rxz1s1Qr~1A:,VMz_\NAGER.
~:3$*.,sRi.;i'2.4.ViEi§KATEsH, ADVOCATE]
_ 'W/0 LATE SRI.M.D.MOi-IAN,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
COOME.
"
c,oMMbN
...APPELLAN'"I'
2. NISMITHA,
D/O LATE SRI.M.D.MOHAN,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
A MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER,
RESPONDENT NO.1 .
3. sMT.sHEsHAMMA,
W/O SRLDEJAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, _
COOLEE. * '
R~1 TO R~3 ARE ALL
R/O MADHUGUNDI,
SUNKASALE POST, _ 2
MUDIGERE TALUK. A '
4. RAMEHA S,/Q ' "
MAJOR, _ ~ ' '
NO.CTX~.V14.1_?«_,V E' . .,
-
5. K.R.CVHANDI2.AsHEKHAx’1*’,
S/O(RU.DRAIAH,7._”
MAJOR, .. * * ‘-
«i:)W1\:’ER OFAAJEEP .?»IO.CTXw 14 1 7,
-_..1(E’NCH’INKALDURGA,
* ~ _Do,DDAIyIAc-AVARAVALLI VILLAGE,
cAI~11’I<3y1A<;;2§,11jUR TALUK.
PRQPO_SE+D_;#'.RESPONDENT NO.6:
6.D.D’.pARAMEsH s/0 DEVEGOWDA.
A COFFEE PLANTER,
;<;AN'CHINAKALDURGA,
DODDAMAGARAVALLI,
A 'CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK RESPONDENTS
ALDUR POST, CO M M 0 N
[BY SRI.M.H.SAWKAR, ADV. FOR R-4.
M/S. A.V.G.ASSOCiA'I'ES, ADVS. FOR R-5
SR1.VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRY, ADV.
FOR EMPLEADING R»~6]
Misc.Cvi.11792/09 in M.F.A.NO.73.89_:/~Q'7'~–.i'sfiled
by respondent No.5 in M1?'-.;A.N{).738*9,'0'?Q, in
M.F'.A.NO.7389/07 under order zRu.1e—-. rs,/3v!'
Section 151 CPC praying for pei'n1is.si'on for pr0duei:~i.on._
of certain additional evideneein f;h"€3."Ei'fJOV(3s;E1'f)}gViE?E;.1. ' "
Misc.CV1.11'793/09 in M«..F.A,NO.'7389/0?? is filed
by respondent No.5 inM.F.;A';NO'.7389/O7"under Order
1 Rule 10(2) r/w '-..S'ectiong_'V1531». 'CPO praying for
permission to impleading;'one.ttv"D'«l3:_Paramesh as
additional respondent we to this' appeal' and
These strife} orders this day,
Shylendra Ku_mqr', 'e'tT.,, msde the ieiiiowingz
Two 1 1793/09 filed under
Order 1 Section 151 CPC seeking for
p.one'V'I}'."D.'Para1nesh S/o Devegowda, Coffee
E§;;_1dt.e:r; .5'iiiariiciiinakaldurga, Doddamagaravalli, Aidur
Chiiiiiaarnagalur Taiuk, as additional respondent
No.6 'toihis appeal and Misc.Cv1.11798/09 filed under
XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking for
__p:I'Od1lCfi0I'l of certain additional evidence in the above
?§/to
appeal and supported by affidavits sworn to by the fifth
respondent in this appeal by name K.R.Chandifas»h'el§ar
who is also the applicant in these
listed before the Court for orders, _ it 3
Applications figuring in
Section 173(1) of the Motor-Vehicles" _£Xvct,.'v:'l'S7':9l'3_:.V
appellant — United India Limited
and directed againstthe' award passed by
the Additional District' Chikmagalur
in questioning the
liability on 'the appellant — Insurance
Company'<–to the compensation payable in
fa§;f(i'1.11jiesp'o11de_nts 1 to 3 in this appeal, who had
' :ligured.,4as;'claimants in MVC.No.478/2000 and who had
put"llfor.th'"f'fitheir claim on the basis that their bread
eaznetlllone M.D.Mohan, a coolie by occupation had died
Consequence of an accident that took place on
9.8.2000 involving a jeep bearing Registration No.CTX~
the Tribunal that in fact the appiication had so-Idppthe
vehicle in favour of one iZ).D.Paramesh S/o
Coffee Planter, Aldur Post,
19.6.1994; that one of the ;;pg:1i¢aii:ims ssp
purpose of impleading this , perso'1i.p::Who
the vehicle as party — respondent to the appeal
and the other application additional
evidence to make good having
been sold the date of the
accident the fifth respondent
has no compensation amount
in favouiiof the 'claimants;'
In the contei.-*:ti'of the submissions, We have also
"-tfecords and the endorsement dated
to the Court by the process server
'gone I3.I'.Satish Which indicates that the Court notice of
claim petition had been served on one
K.C.Prashanth s/o Chandrashekar i.e., the fifth
9/
respondent and as on that day the said Chandrashekar
was not in town, on his behalf he
receiving the notice and the copy of the
In the state of this factuaiv;'positioin,Athe :"(3oiir_t
was right in setting the respondentaiveiépa-rt.e-5 and'-L'
proceeding to examine the cIa.in}.petition."' —
Be that as it e' the.'appl–ications of this
nature V the applicant
wriggling fastened in terms of the
judgrnlenty in this appeal by the
Insurance in law for the reason
thatfa sggrespondent an appeal cannot by merely
"1'.e:1"iaining_eas._a respondent seek to get over the award or
see};slicer'rnoldification of the award to his advantage
at " ' terms o'i'¢Order XLI Rule 21 c1=c.
Withouiffilirlig an appeal or a possible cross objection in
M
1.4
Though we notice that we have granted interim
order in favour of the appellant
in'1P1e1nentation of the order and award *
belownas on 14.7.2008, we findgthere "
justification to continue this inte.ri1*a
in the pecuiiar facts as 'noti–c:edV_aboVe__ we
Vacate the interim order appefiflant terms,
that the appeliant entire award
amount With;-(1 four
weeks to prosecute this appeal.
We “before the Tribunai to
draw of as and when they enter
ap pearance.’ this appeal.
V” The ..’p’Registry« to intimate the claimants–‘
reSpo’1;de–ntsVf’.e’th:at on their entering appearance in this
appeai,._aI1d.:’participating in the present proceedings they
may ‘Withdraw the 50% of the compensation amount
‘depofsited before this Court and the Registry, also to
15
indicate that cost of Rs.5,000/– will be paid to the
respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal on their _’erVi;te:fing
appearance, to meet their kegs.-11 expenses.
Ordered aceordingiy. V
The learned counsel for fnhe»_:appe}1a’:1’t:_.:
memo on deposit of the amVou_;1t fer f{,1’rthereV
‘ V ”