-- 3/o Gxgaiggjppa.
MFA N€>.199?.'2B0-4
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT '
DATED THIS me am mar 09 JUI*IE1_?:_('};)VV9 If g T' L
sEFoRE
THE Hoirnm DR. Jusncm *
MISCELLANEOUS Fi§ES'i' A;3i§§;.aL 'V V
BETWEEN:
New India Assurance Company. Ltd".-," H
Repxesented by the F3eputyAl'a--'i:::.x1fa.ge'1*;A '
Unity Buiiding Annexe;-. I
Mission Road, H _. , Q 4_
Banga1ort:~--27. _ Appellant
(By Sri R --.ada%;,,'--f§r"appe:;§ant;
AND: %' ' V' 4% %' %
1.
YMunmd£a,_%’ A
Major, » V
V. ‘ ‘J agauxfzifih; °’ V ._
Maziéfr
S/0′–Munjndr:é1;., ” ‘
Z Age: 2’4 Yeats, AT
“Both ax»: msidisg at No.2,
f j – 59-? Cmss; II ‘Stage,
Ffoad,
_V ..Bai:-gaore~26. Rcspondmlts
MFA No. E99?/’Z004
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 1?’3(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated
21.10.2063 passed ‘m MVC No.3538/2009 on the file of AddI;”‘Judgc
85 Member, MAC’T–V, Court of Smali Causes, Bangalore, SC’…CE~§ No.5
awaxtiing compensation of Rs.10,8()()/ – with interest at 8’?§p.é.–,:”fiom
the date of the Petition till the date deposit. ” ‘ -« — ” :_.
following:
JUDGMERT
This Appcai coming on for hearing this day, t_1ie* V.
The appellant,’ Insurance Comfiafoyvis bofozpc V
to setting asicie the judwent and 21′. made in
MVC No.3538/ ‘ZZWG on the filékoffl Causes] MACT-V at
Bangalore Citjfi.
2. Leamgd for Cchhe appellant] insurance Company
suiggfiimo Vt’1*:;:=;t filo urged by the appeiiantfinsurance
ovsoaor cum driver of the Maruti Van in question
iicericg to motor vehicles; Whereas the vchicic
~ béajiag registration No.KA—(}3–N–8794 was a iuxuxy taxi.
“‘~I’7:heréfo_;1°3,_» :fi§;is contended that the owner cum dxiver of the insured
V. no valid drivizag iixrencc and he cited d€CiSi()I1S zeported
52006 ACJ 1336 (NATIONAL INSURANCE co. LTD. Vs. KUSUM
RA: Arm OTHERS) and (ii) ACJ 2008 2161 ( NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
!
E
L.”
MFA Vzs%o,11997z2oo4
co. Ltd. vs. ROSHANBEN RAHEMANSHA FAKIR A:\’f’1::
both on the point of liability of the Insurance V
3. Perused the trial Court ncooxfds.
4. The appefiantl Insmfi7.@,_ce inslnance
policy bearing No.6’71201/31] to private car
(Zone A) policy B Compgjfiéhcxisivc.
5. Tho’ tC§mp;§ny has insured the vehicle
in question 3-:1 has paid pzttmium covering
risk of foo: the car. The owner cum driver of
jtlza h€i”1’i*.r.ir.:..g’ Iiconce to drive light motor vehicle fiom
Hence, the contention of the appellant that
the cir;§é:~.oo£’fi;é’o;y¢;£ii§:e had. no valid driving licence to drive motor
vehicle as; o.1i’vthé e:iatc of accident viz, }.2.8*2OU0 is not corroczt. The
‘i by the isazned Counsel for the aypcflants are not
apijlioawétiio the case on hané. There is no mcrit in the Appeal.
6. in the result, the Appeal faiis and the case is ltmrehy
A ~~éi$misse:d.
L
MFA E\é’0: –1§$.??f206«=1
The sisatutory amount in deposit in this case
{he Tribunal for disbursement, in accoxdanée
338
I .
1._