The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt J R Renukamma W/O Late … on 4 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt J R Renukamma W/O Late … on 4 August, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT 13Ar;&g3;é.i;0¥:efi>..

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGfiI§I' 2&0?  "

BEFORE'  . é 

THE HOEWBLE MR. JUt'§'i"I«§"i1§§A.AI3i'.}fisN@';P~§, i):'§.v «.  

M.F.A.NQ.94C:Q :(3.F'   

BETWEEN:

1. THE NEW INDIA AssURANcE%.{:r3«.LTD%Tv._   _
HASSAN BRANCH, "  . '   ._ 
BY ITS REGIONAL :jF*F*1c:'E,"* - V. j
mm'? RII¥I.F){!'-¥€i?aAlS§hII12'}{¥31, 3; ..
MISSION I::oA:>,  ._ 1 
BANGALOE?'E~i2?"--.  " '*

    .

m:e:.v.’:g.M__nEsA:z-~.__» _ — – APPF1¥.¥,M~fi’

{By Srnt : u?§EE’:’£”;i’€::’é:”s,”a?i’.’aLVk: EEETHARAMA RAG, ADVOCATE)

AN;:ja- »

V’ . 1.” <.§is.s':%-J mugamm
. mo z_.A'1"&fe;–DU;3BaRaNGAPPA

;'%GIéZI3:4!,_ YF';ARSg

.I?';"§;T.JAr3'2%'v?ARA VILLAGE,

I'«;AI~;AKA*m?;:_ HOB LI,
AR§S1KE__E§:'B'. .'TI'.AI.,IjI«{.

2. sfi:..\_%iJAYAKUMAR

s,::.::; MTE DUBBARANGAPPA

A:3§:’:>::22 YEARS,
” i?3]PfP.JANNAVARA vzxmam,

KANAKAT’I’E HOBLI,

u …–AR$§IKERE ‘I’AL.UI{.

3, SEE RANGAPPA

EHO {ATE DUBBARANGAPFA
AC§Ex’Z3:Qf0 YE3§RS,

E1? ;’ §&T.JA§€}’€fixVAi’€A ‘v’ILLAGEE,.
i{fiNAKA’ITE HC}BL§,ARS§KI3i?E TALUK.

4. KUM MADHP.MA§.A’I’Hi

DID {ATE DUBBARANGAPFA
AGIYEF”): 3 5 YEARS,

MINOR REPBY HER MOTHER
SMT.JJ§’.RENUKAMMA.

R;’AT.JANNf§VARA VILLAGE, .

KANAKATTE ¥»l€)’r3%¥.f, ‘
ARSIKISRE TALUK.

5.KEsU1::EsH V
SiO.ESHWARYANAIKA –_
KITHANKERE, }{ANAKA’I’I’¥:3_H’OBL!?’ _
AFEESIKERE TALUK V v_ rzgsmgmzauws
{By Smt: K.s.;aNA.SI’JYA1§EV1 FOR~M[S’£H’.A_YAMiTRA FOR RM;
845 SERVE.!’)}. 5; ~. A _ ‘

.MF’._,_ fLE2I3§*I:.;UiS–_I;~?3(l}”‘”G–F’ Mv ACT AGAINST THE
.III¥’3€”§;MF§N’l’ .’t’s?”~§}”3 AWARF)”~.f)A’F¥ifF):f}£.?.04.’.2007 PASSED IN MVC
N0.64;2oss .or:V’j’*rH33_ “F1LE« OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.} &
ADDITIGNAL MAcP,__2’a_Rs.ImRL:, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
0;? ;:2s.2.,”2r4,e:a0o/:– wzm VI’§~2?1’ER§:sT AT THE RATE OF 6% RA.
FROM ‘1″III§’:>A’1’3 PETRTION TILL PAYMENT.

ap1§é*;ai,,…csrming on for hearing, this day, the

° £’,Lftii;t’t,”‘{Jic;Iiv4;;11:;d the following:

JUfiG%NT

‘iifilslrrance company has fiieci this appeal tn

set asicie the impugned award, inter aiia, contending

% the ttribunai ciid not have jurisdiction to ‘try the

” ciiaim; the iiiabiiity of insurance «mmpany in sf’

six tmnamed persons mentioned in the frolic}; is

gm:

restricted to a sum of Rs.’25,f}{){)/– in Tt’:$~’:{)C§?”1′]’–(V}’i’*

claim.

2. T have hearti ‘l’c”:3r_’rsed.;«d(§1é1}sréi7«’ft$i'”.

insurance cempany and Smt.K.SV.__Afias:Iya(}_:=fv’i,

cmlnsel for ctaimarats.

3. I have }§)f3T11v2’§JP;(i’_0t7__§V(5;(?iii&(%!”:1 st:at;2ment”fii’éd by the
insurance company before the tri;’x*21iI1a~i.__’_’.’I’he insalrance

company T’a_1’SEi(‘§”‘;tfit”;.rqi”ifiSfjit;t’£’1 of fiufisdiction

befm”’emré;(~rn….t.ht=: insured and insunrance company

V ‘€.»13:~:t:’i:!§:=:j11t’isdictic>11 of trib11n:’-11 in rmpect of ciaims

inside other than insnrtui.

‘4; ‘As: regarcis. limited iiabiiity nf 1″.hE’:.i?1S13I’5’~§¥}C{-‘J

“ii c§§t¥§«p3I3y, finm the terms of the policy, I find that

fénmlmnce company has coiiecrted 3 5mm of Rs.<}{}/– to

cover risk of six zmraamed persons. The cap}; of the

policy filed by the insurrance company darts not indicate

that Iiahiiitv of the insurance C0¥H'f}a'!'E'V Es restricted to 3

W

sum of Rs-'..25,000j*. Therefore, the secnnd n0nte:r_;t.i0n

urged in the appeai cannot be accepted. In

above I do not find any ermr in the imp!

Acrtordingiy, appeai is ciistnissr':d.A_

The amount in deposit. svitailhiiie

Civil Judge (Sr.T}n.) 4% A<idi."1%2f:A{"Yi' at V

The parfies are 't:'.irr=.c:ts«: c'i"1it:.: "E:4'.1if".§';§'1".._fi'l6'i3" basis.

Ed/..

C3In1’~

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *