High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Babu Rao S/O Shankarappa Kagi on 1 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Babu Rao S/O Shankarappa Kagi on 1 August, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana
 

1;»: THE; HIGH" comm' 0:1' KARNfi{{'AKA AT 23AN'{}g§xLvs:;T;éé  " 

DKFED mgs THE 1%? BAY gr}? }XU'i}!JA'S"7{' 2068    Z

PRESENT: _ H
Ho1\;»g;,E MRS. wszrzcfi a{:g..gJgLA 
. ANDV,----  ' " 4

IriQN'BLE MR. .;Us'I*I'{::3i E;N:KE'f$HAi?A{~Efi.RfiYANA

Mgfig. Nc>;4':sé;;  __Lv'.'vV}~,' K
BETWEEN: '  ' " 1 ' ' V'

. {ENITED Iflifiifg 'E§21;&3§;Rp:NCVE'- "

C€}MP.ANY L;v;s§I*i';:m,'L:, '21'  '-

REGIONAL c;FF;CE,"-': ~.__"»   - -

N025, SHAN'i<AR4NAR_AYANA' BU'iLL'i~ING,

M.G.ROAD,  .   ,_ 
BANGALOR}3',~560~§}O1.V ._

REPRESENTEJ} BY ms 

DE}Z.)UT¥   _____  ...APPELLANT

fair".$R:{,A;M.1Ig':é%1§;m?;.sH 55 SRI,B.C:,SHI'\!ANNEGOWDA, ADVS.)

  AND; H = A"

1. BABE} E§;a:3"$m"SHANKARAPPA KAGE

A .zQ 5  ~

 At;-ED 530.1}? 4 1 YEARS

. «RE~§';fi.&_ 'if/0 BABE} mo KAGI,
gcaga ABOUT 1*: YEARS

 -»€)C{3: ?S'F{}"DENT

 ;3., giviaavasaags D; 0 BABU' RAG ms:
 A.GED ABOUT 9 YEARS

SvL.N{f}.2 AND 3 SINCE MINOREE

5"'
'é:-/'



JUDGMENT

This appeal is mad under Sectien 173 (1) fl1i”f”,:V

Vehicle: Act by the insurer questioning

of the judgment and award dated 28.;’2,2(}Of3’Tv péis3v§é£1″‘vi:§3V§

Additienai Civii Judge (sr.Dn.)’ .$z;’~….VMA¢T-3x:;,_V “:fga12}§a.:~ a;

MVC.Nc.a.30{}/2002?. with rezgayd to t11e.V gz1a12.?gum.’o’f -cgmgfiiensation

awardezd therein,

2. Respondent 1 11:0 1:3.:.§i1egf”‘;f.1g”ig;§;__:fg)<§titjo:1 before: the
'§"rib11:{1a1 Sfiékillg€'¢§3££€i{)%i:1i$é;f£OB:Z':'-f§5i" of 01:16: Saraswathi
who dieé 'm£§t{V)*r:t'7§§hi§5I£iT.:_é€Cic1e11t that moaned at aboui
1{).0().a.m. on patition was ctontesteci by thfi
z-,1ppe}1an"t¢ '¥'I:*1€v…;7{'fib:,;:=;1a1, on assessment of the: era} and

5' _fié'e.A?.i:;1;jvi1'»:%V<=:, by the judgment under appeal, held that

the atfcidéfgt i$'$$~v.,Q1:.[.V;a€§count of rash and negligent driving of the

'.; iéVi"1§: beafing v–Né.'I*2§fYL–7633 by its drivxszr. Having regard to the

"""_!ei{¥i7d::V{ice _piac:e;–d§ by the ciaiznatzt, the Tribunai by taking the

"-iziésms Of the deceased at Rs.4,0C3G-{)0 awardcd

§€:{;5V,21–,§)00~QQ as compensation.

4'?

{§/

§7s’,v<«:3;io8<38/” ._é01f1ji;::;3 t

pstition on 511} grouflcls availabk: t0 the 01§?:1éi”0f 31:? v¢}i£Cié_.

thiiss circumsiancas, in the absencs of t1*ii:§ vériiten G’r:ie’r.i’r0fi1;; ‘t}1é’._

Tribunal, permitting 1:116 ingurer to the ‘cafi a11

grounds as availabla to the insured, fh€:é,_’p’§(i.’a_l f11e<:a{'by. thé insurea'
is me: maanzamable in the ughixfif 1§id.f¢:§wn by the Fiorfblc
Supreme Court in thefcgse United India

Insurance Co. 1-x;.R,~1l99s 233?. In this

View of the the appeliant is 11:31:

maintainable. ‘ 4. V

5. Acfficaiéingiy, V’u’3.gfi.é1ppe::3l is dismissed as not maixztamahie,

‘€316 merits of the agpeal.

sal-§_

Iudge
St-15…

Jucige