High Court Karnataka High Court

Ramejabi Kom Rajesab Alias V … vs M/S Deluxe Roadlines on 1 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ramejabi Kom Rajesab Alias V … vs M/S Deluxe Roadlines on 1 July, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar K.N.Keshavanarayana
IN Tim mm»: COURT 0? 
cmcvrr BENCH AT nrmaazw   % % 

mvmn Tiils TEE 15*' DAY eF.k;r:;;,Y,%Aj29a9_%  « '.   

Tm I-m2~t*BLE :sm..rtrs*:?:tc.g fivksHYm°1§*mzA1xU$An
TI-m §ION'*BLE MR.3'&_S'f*I§Eiv if §{EESHAVANARAYANA

  g; wkna.3m;2m2m;

RP:Rr1EJ.}1BI 'f§iZ*§\?I~.EiAJ ESAB
ALIAS 2! 'i\EATAR)«'*»a}AN" %
s/:3 VELU ;»'~'gCH;ARi«.MESTRI
&GEZ' L:y1;wOR, 'OEZCF NIL
_ 79';/O 133' LAMA CAMP TEBETIAN
_.% ACQLO NY," "kill N13 GOD
  _  N'C3:'i,'sf":*§T KHUNNUR JANATA PLOT
%   » .TQ;'$gr1:GGAoN, DIST I'-£A's/ER},

 gy%_ ~., ,» KHAFPELLANT
gm' sR:,Lc;;KEsH MALAVALLI, &DV.)

  -.A.ND:" 

A'   j;vI,!S DELUXE ROAELINES
" NQ69 4TH CROSS N.R.ROAD
BANGALQRE 2
OWNER OF TRUCK NO.KA~01/A«5057



NATEQNAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BY ITS EEVISIONAL MANAGER
SLEJRTHA TALK} ES CGME"-'LEX
HUBLI

INSURER GP' .KA~w0i~A--505"i

SURESH DA'}"TA.TREYA DEV.A;KAfi*f}'V'""'57.";"   

AGE MAJOR occ: DRIVER O1?' ; 
'TRUCK NO.KA~»~OI.--A-5057f  *
R/O C/O RESPONDE':";N_'__I' 1  *

PADMARAJ P CHYABBI  
AGE MAJOR c:v::<: D(}C'}'GR 
R/C) C/O v1JAY;;r»CL2N::::%   %
MUNDGQD <w  i »%-
ms? UTTAR KAgNN§'-;}}"}.A'  
{OWNER Q1? 'CAR z~I; IvI"'f.A4--4'4-€33}

T133 a71T2i:jEt:%':*;a,L%%::%é$UkRANcE CG LTD
BY'~.£TS E}£§«'i§$jI{3P%g§;';E=.E¢£AN,%G§',R
ENE{?«..__Y' <::oM P}_;E§X'_.'~KE$HWAPU Eli

_I-fUBi fizszsu;-2332 <3? CAR NQMYA-~44C13)

A. é§iE5%LEjV%';%CH1§;Rmf««S/Q NATARAJAN @
 k .§€';%N§£gE€AJAN ACHARY

"  .AGE./VMAJGR OCC BUSINESS

" * =»._A£'~§S FATHER 0? macgasgm

 %%%'%R;Q';.;x.MA CAMP MUNDGOD

NFZQR OF CAR NQvMYA"%4fl3
33%? FATHER IN LAW C)?' fiPPELLAN'I'

 RESPONDENTS

(BY SRLLAXMAN BMANNODHAIQ, ADV. FDR

sR1.s.s.JosH:, ADV. FUR R5}

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF M’v’__AC’I’
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND mam
DA’I”ED:4,3.02 PASSED IN MVC NO.63f£’f’i3.’€;:..4..j:’;:.5’§§I:j’~~.’
THE FILE OF THE E ADDL. MST. J1j:3i<3?Ei%;%¢.}mD%«%
MACT, DHARWAD, SITTING Afi' "1A'¥{U'BL2§,_
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR cOr»4%P:?,:§%sAT:QN.

'I'HIS MFA QQMING "£E§V:1Vfé.FC§.R*.O'R€?=I§%fiSVVVT'HIS k
DAY, SHYLENDRAV .~K}JM,{–'gR – ""D.ELI'é?'ERED THE
FOLLOWING: L %

T'-.his_ – -the claimant in MVC

M637/:%99%6 fi'.v¥VZ'}:?'_' V1;%_§'..1'#.':';::':f3'fL'£¥'3V of the Clear: Qf the First

Ad§i'§::§.§{:a}Vv D£s:r§¢:&a.nd Sessians Jaclge and MAST,

'_3i:tfl1:i-zig at Hubii, whasa claim for payment

0if\' «¢ é11*1p;e:ii':§faEtion at: the éeath of one Rajesab

"ve._'_"'-..V.Nai:éa:f§%jan asaci as his '¥i?'iCiC2'W was rejecteci by the

: i;1'i¥:;.t§.nal fer the reasen that a like shim had aireadfg

..}::éen put fart}: by the tribunai ix: MVC ?\§<:)-55E/ IQQQ

V fiieci by 0113 skmbika Devi and her children and that

M

claim haé a.1re3.d;§.2' been settled before th¢.__ Lek
Adaiath and an amount 0f Rs.2,90,00G/-
been cemputed as compensation
iegal heirs of the deceased pezfééié'
paid by the insurance fa¥»ggr:'a;:VfV':a'f
persons' Therefore, the
present appelianty there
carmet be pa§?men§..«–:*.;zig';§ of the same

1§a'm1§:;,;_ _

2. ” ‘ Cir: ‘f§efus:é;}.T.__Véf_’both the MVC cases, we

have z1é’t:i–r.’:Mé<i t:if:a_A'i,~, b"%.i.:iie1:1 the s0–ca}.1ed settiemenf:

A' ibef-:1-srve the Lek Adalath in B/EVC

mg.%5s:%;;&:4;%,% the mic Nafifi?'/1§96 was very

magéh 'befare the tribunai aizci mare

ir:1pG.f*{:.:3i1'1'££y, the second respandantwingurarice

' "'Cferripar2y which is party in both the ciairri petitions

served and represented ii} berth cases and it

M

was incumbent cm the part 9? the Insufance
Companj; to bring it ':9 tha rmtice of the
that there are two claim petitions and
are cempetfiflg to claim as xxriffg \€'5t""'1:},A"!~?.5"
question sheuld have been_ regs-1§;e-Ci
was made to any one mczssthgr'
hané, Insurance i'1:;AaQ #1a1"tisatn
manner and enabigd. to receive
the the armmrit
and t}t*:.at'– put against the present
not be a proper.

.__Th$v”‘ivn–$ur3.nce Company which has to

_ x*v31’§:i;bi;:.:f$c%”A’ evmer of the Vehicie should have

ta}-{erg during the penciency of twa alaim

pefit: dn.§ in “respect vary accident and bath ia&ie3

to be legal heirs 0f the deceased and it is

§/

0111}: thereafter, the payment shcuid have Egeen
made. V ‘

4. Though Sri;.Laxmar’1
leanized Ccsunsel appeamirig
Company submits that the
go t0 a. Civil Court to claim
the amount, we firlvcig-._..ifi1;s’3.tA.V: cgf action

will be an exercise iI1A”fu%;i:1§.i’f§f” I}.niefss the present

ap§e11;é%’i£Tv _cc;fi§ ;3ensation payable by

the owrieg’ E-and il:1′ {he Insurance Company.

;:2r€:.sent appellant is asked to gc ta

tthé’ ‘€[i*;i’ii_”£’.;:c;V:g§’t., there can be three possibilities, 0118

Eable to estabifih that she algae is the

T “»~’4«___V”Wife, ir3,__ *§vh§Tch event, she gets the ccmpensation, if

.£na}; not be able ta establish as wife, in which

.,.a’s’}e:t°1t, she wifi net get 8.11}? compensatiofl and if the

Civi} Court cames ta the cenciusian that bath the

es/

ciaimarats have to share, may be arnaunt has to be
appznrtioneci betwgen mic: sf them. in any View cf
the matter, the present appellant
mm part of the amount sf compe:1sat§{3:%;.f:}i§_§%
insurance Cempany has to

as the ciaimaxits in oth’:_~3r_ péiifilén’
received, the entirg more

avaiiabie beferte thié : ‘4 V

H “it; 5ig é;’Mcii£’sput& Qf this nature
saE’1o:.1}&7be Civil Caurt and not by

Mam’. gt %isk%%:~;g1:::g,z% gfibmgtted by Sri.Ma.n:{meddar,

Cflunsel appearing fer the ingurance

have paid the amsm: eniy after

V -V thék’ 1fef;éa9:I:: i:té0:1 :3? the éispwie by 3; Civii Csuri

V’ ‘. r.£i1s”‘é::s.=§ad; of acting in a greemptiva manner and thai:

‘ iég {fie mason Wh}_; we partly 311011;?’ this appeal with

é/A

settiement. E1: is only after these deveiczrpments, the
Insurance Company has filed its objections to MVC:
No.63?/1999 0:1 15.02.2001 seeking far
3f the ciaim petitioni ‘» A4

8. Rpart fram Eegal£ty_,,»~th;eA ”
Irzsurance Company is not :’V’bAc;.:’1’1_=:V3’_”
poirim to an ac’: cf ‘t§)»:”_;fzV§iix§f@§i1’r’V:QI1e

ciaimant,

9, –. ‘HéL%§i1g4’Ar:égg;fd ‘ta the circumstances, we

era in¢1i&;.e d.,tc§ .di:fe’c:§f..’L’the insurance Company to

£§f«.I§’f..s;],,50,()00/– E9 the credit of the

‘pVr4é3eAr:vi: £;.Emz:I1″–:-int by way of a terrn clepesit in any

r”:$J;iéna_3_i2,ei.gi ‘Qar:}{ i:1itia..I;1y far 3. periecl cf five yéars.

is é;;#;_§-in to the present appellant ta appmach the

and astabiish her rights, base& on her

-.vsiatus as the Wife of the deceased Rajesab

V.Nata.ra_}:an 313$ than thereafter, the amcunt can be

Ii}

accordingly ordered to be released either ir1V.i’z.,=1§§o_;.1r

0f the claimant, if she shoulci aucceed

suit :31″ ta be returned ta the,£»;°:s11:*a:é£:es*–:§f3.e3f2=:pa:1§g% ‘

depending on the out game of:”t}1e’:_AS1;:iit

the present appefiant. ifi3:1§;zancé’ field ”

Eiabie to make gooé fahe _.2eim.€§’L3§9i’Aft?._.of iicnapénsatian
payabie to the appelléi”-&’h’e:I’§é%’i1 _.i:1fi”i’i3§1 $’_$F%ver:t sf their
success bef{}1’ei2gi:;;}1e -.C0’z.;:{ff’–1_’a;_r:§,T’nothing beyond

and can v{;’c:r1+;_”cut.”it,::§_’f§é’m:e’e.ti§f ézggwper iaw against the

othgr ,, A I’ .

‘}”G2. afigwed ta this extent.

1″

sd/5..

JUDGE

Sg/..

‘ JUDGE

E33