EN THE HEGH CQURT Q13' KARNATAKA, BAN
.DA'I'E'£> THIS THE 23% DAY OF E?E1BR{§AR)?"12{§--«'1s';3'..j: L' %
BEFGRE
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE H'eB§IL£rr:~-- seas _ ...Appe11ant
(By M] 85 Adv. ,}
AHD:
_............................
1. Ti?1e"New uiIx<viia"i£s€}§.;¥$§$1s€
ffiésmpany Limitagi, .
" « V«N'0,4"'§f "ZR, Ni._i:k1yanaI;.da Nagar,
. ' §»$V9:.;:a;1d§;1ai1a13i,
. *-'PgfiysQfe._'x€@éxzi»;
" A B'ax1ga1'<;::"'j_€t.5'
Raprgsented by its Branch Manager'
H A. ,'I'l:1é"£3'§1iteé India insurance Sempany,
V Shanna},
-33%' im Managar.
F SEE. P,E{a1iya.,ppa§1,
S/' :3. Petunia],
Lg"
Petfiyragowdana Pudur,
Periyapalli,
Namakkal District --- 637 801. . . .Respor:v:i£::11ts
(By Sri.R.Rajagopalan, Adv, for R4
By Sri..M.Arm:1 Ponnappa, Adv., for R~'2)
This M.F.A. is filed under 1:23 'T{(1)%5f
against the judgement and deczfzm dated K 1.1122003 passed
in MVC 190.852/96 on the file of 1.;-';x;=5'XI)( Addl.' of
Smaii Causes, Member, MAST, Meimpolitan' Bangaiere,
(SCCH No.17), diSII1iS$§§1g _.t1'1a Claim "petition for
compensation. V " * .-- Vv "
This M.F.A Corning this day, the
Court delivered 1:11;: «fiQIit_:3Wi1i;g:~§ '
Thi$'awppe:¥i§ udir%:Cf£4:c§§.,ga3:1st the judgment and award,
"1 by the MACT, Bangalore
(s<i<:*°{§k:;«:~:f§.5,' .1§f€C.NQ.852/ 1995.
2. " ~. the impugnsd juziment and aware}, the
éismissed. the petition filed: by tbs appeléant
V. damages is this vehicle.
L//..
3. Aggréeved by that, 1:116 appellant has filed this
appeal.
4. In brief, tha facts are; The appeHant"ۤ%}21s
of the Canter bearing registration N'c3fKA.JG:_3§.65.;5f§V:'aI;§1 6:1 » j AV
3~1995, the Canter was moving
Near Mott: Benxmr Village, the 161€j?.bea¥ii1g_
came from 13116 OppflsitfiVffiI?§3Ctj{3fiV_§§¥§'§ili'g1'} Sp€(:':d§ dashed
agairlst the éanterf As gamer was
complete}? 5:: cornpensation 0f
Rs.1,5O,0§O ' has dismissed the claim
pe'£;itioa. _v Aufigrticzefgzafiw 'ffhti appellaziit has flied this;
~. caunsel far the appeliant contended
mat :3-is was met juszified in dismissing the claim
' j§§é;~fiti<;:"z,.' fie also submitted that tha 'iféhiiilfi was extensivaiy
and the insurer 91" the appailant has not
V. ' 'céigfiifisnsataé the appeflarx: aciequateiy arzfi thsrafere, the
Tribunal was :10: justifiad in éismissing {ha ciaizn pefifiann
L/J/.
He also submitted that the Value of the vehicle showgx
policy is Rs.3,77,{)GO/ -7 and the appellant *
Rs.2,7'3,.:'i00/~ and therefore, the "I'rib1:11al--.was1; in
dismissing the claim petition He, tfierefere, _
impugned judment anti award
5. As against fl1i'e;,_;...A_ for the
respondents 1 and 2 V was insured
with the first respeficieeiiiiz has paid a
sum sf Rs.2,78,:”;ifJ€i_:}’ ‘fi:r;eI:»§séit1ement of the eiaim
ef the appeiian-i report and therefore, the
Tebuna; the claim petition. They
g_3.3g fgkiai has surrendered the vehicle
sum of %?%s.2,’}’3,;:”i00/– in full and fmal
Vsettiemeizt They aiee submitted that the
eeppeflenif .1’1:”aeh§10t produced anything be Shaw that the
iiieceived by him is in..adeq1_:ate. Therefore, they
i’.’i”s_3_[fi3mit£ed the: the impugned judgemefit am award does net
L//..
cal} for interferenm. They also placed reijarzce an
decisions;
(1) 2005 ma page 1332
(2) (2009) 4 SCC page
7. I have carefuily C011Si%ié%%?d made
by the iearnad counsel for ” _
8. The §)(),ii’£it;: tifiat 1’€i1f”ii.t1_3i_ périsideration is,
Whether i?éaEi!£!i€i£.j’:~Jii}%1.sv”:;f1iiafAt’fied in dismissing the
claim petition? A’
9. Ii é_s reiévaiit.i’t.;2 i’;i;’fé; the appeilant is the ewner 0f
tbs: veiiicicii. “‘Nai.KA-Q2~6552. The accident has
1995. The appeilarit has ciaimed
cor3i’13c5ii$atii)iifv_v..fréi:ii’. his insurer i.e., the first respondent.
Si1:vey i’:as’—V conducted. Based on the survey report, 3
“<}f..$siV2,'?3,50Q/~ has been paid to tha appenam. The
has accepteé it in fail and final sfittiemant of his
V. ' Thereafter, the appeliant has fiiefi ciaim patitiori. The
L//,
appeilz-mt has not produced anything to Sh()W -'fiéie
amount received by him is inadequate. It is clear
evidence, the appeiiant has surrer1é:e:'ed* «f.3A1e'__vei'ii:bie_ bee'
received a sum ef §?~2s.2,'73,50{}/V-,
of his claim. The appellant has the
repair ef the vehicle. Baseifixfian claim of
the appellant has been seeflie-(ii has accepted it
and thereafter, in the case :31'
HARKHU 3. Others reported in
2005 owner 01' the vehicle
having receivfeél % full and final settlement of
his claim free} }1i.s' insurefleannet claim compensation from
the offendizig vehicle.
_ .vV,iti1e’v.fi)resent ease, the appellant has received
Vc:£3n1pef1eat:’aei1’vfi*em his insurer in fuii and fine} settlement at”
thereafier, filed claim petitiezx, Pie deubt, in the
value ef the Vehicle is shown as es.3,77,eoe/».
“B§it’,”éfier the eurvey repent, the damage has men aeseseed at
Rs.2,’?3,5{){}/ ~. ‘1’h<~:~ appelizmt has accepted if,
the amounf: in fuli and 11113} settlement of
shows, the vehicle has been tr3I1SfC3?}rCd_:3:('}::.{)"I]C.:$131 '
4~ll-~1995. _ V 2 _ _
31. The appellant has récg§i?ed c<§x13p'e1§.-safigriw in full
and {ma} settlement of '_c1a_i':i1H'V_ : t;h¢reafiéf,' vfiled ciaim
petition. N0'::hi11gVhas show that the
amount rsceived:_"b3%:;; fif1e éippeifan t .:is:-Vhixmziéquate. Therefore,
the claim petifion. The
impugmd :30: cal} for interferenoez.
There isgrigfc .tfxifs=_a;':¥j$ea1 arr} 1261106, it is liable ta '03
%
– Amaeramgy, it is dismjsseci.
3&5
–‘Es3fJ§