A'gar_1_ abmit' 2'? years,
LS'/T0,._S:i.4Basappa Patter,
IN THE HEGH COURT OF "
CIRCUIT BENCH AT <}U1,B}{R#(3+;é;;%i 2 A " ' AL
BEFORE«
THE HONBLE MR. .ft:.I_S'i'.i_CE H,131%LLA1%éA~VJ[ A -
DATED THIS THE DAY'QF 2003 k'
M;'F:A. mass 1%Vj'2o07A% iIvm~V %
BETWEEN:
O:ienta1..E1§s};;1'a1i¢e :,'x§%.md;';%% ,k '
S.S.F'm13tE§'ba;d.,'« 1' 1;,
Bijap=i::r« "I9 1. ._ ' ,
Reg. by:
The Regional Marzager, » . ,.
The Oriental insurancea. Ce.Lt:._i.,*--.
Regiona} Ofi'ice,; " . ., V_ V' V '
Leg sh,g'pp;ng.,(jon;§icx, .....
44/ 45,' VResic.£e:_ncy Roa.d,=._ V
Banga1ore55faO "0L2';Z»,_ " . "
Byjits Max;age:e.%« .. APPELLANT
(B3? & Sridagadish G.Ku1::1bar,
Gffild 'Smith,
L{/
R/o.A1junag', Indi Taluk,
Bijapur Ij)istri{:t.
2. Sri.Sh.ivananda,
Agfid about 40 years, j;
S / 0. Srri. Muregeppa Armeppanavar,
Business and Owner of
Tempo No.I{A 28/A
Mallikaxjuna Celony, _ _
Ashram Road, Bijapu;~_ _.... _ .. REVS!-IPGNE')ENTS
(By srm. G. chags;s;;e:t:%M¢é;;3;{. if-{..}i§3'i:*';9.da.r, Adv. for 3- 1;
R---2 N0t:'a<;eA Wifl1A.}_ " V .,
may
;'i'I1i$.VI§iF;e'g _u'fS2.:i7_3(1) of MV Act against the
judgment. rgand ' aW£é1'd' "dt.'1~3~2007 passed in MVC
Nu%.%%1T235;;o1' i.1<1e---f1ie"i)i"*$t11e Pr1.CJ (Sr.D;r:.), & CJM.,
lfigiemberg -;'€%.r{AC.'F~V1;"~.BijapL1r, awarding compensation of
R's,1i,17;660,1awi:h«.+::::erest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
petition 1:i1i=d6pV0sit:---- '
{taming on for orders this day, the court
C 5'ti<;1i:vc,rAed the' 'f::-}i0wiI1g:-
JUDGMENT
. the it-Earned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated 1-3~20()’7 passed by the MAC’1’«VI,
Bijapur, in MVC Ne. 1236/2001.
L/%
* one of the grozmds specfi Kid in section
‘ofV&fI1e’e?Act and therefore, the Insurance Company
,é.;void the iiability. It has also held, the
Company caxmot avoid the liability on the the
first respondent was travelling on the to§~~-o1fV¥i§e’.j’S{ehic1e
and therefore, the impugned j¥.l(i%1€I1.1;®&:;i_7f?§é::.$;§E%§31’d’
not call for interference.
7. I have carefi31Iy..%conSide1’ed “submissions
made by the learned oou11ee;’1–foi*e__the parties}
8. The poim; that a-ri:~3es’9 ‘for’1*i13*”‘oonsideratéon is,
justified in fasterfing
the liability on thee[app¢11a:;:e:£;§u;e:i§{¢ c¢§@any:>
9. It is not in was traveiiing
on t11e:_.:t(?f9_0f” Court in the case of
UNrI*}3DV”‘eeo%_’11$iVt:}§,;\% co. L’i’D., vs.
reporlzed in 11,12 2000
.612, held, travelling in a vehieie sitting
V
insurance Company cannot maintain ‘.1 as
right cf appeal is confined to the
under section 149(2) of the ._A;:t
considered view, there is ‘ ‘A
the ieamed counsel fdi; it
is rejected. ‘i’he176;zis “i1_1_ and hence,
it is liable to be A
Sd/-»
Iudge