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’~
