United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Hemavathi W/O Late Ashok on 16 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Hemavathi W/O Late Ashok on 16 July, 2009
Author: V.Gopalagowda And Swamy
  

 

IN THE HIGH coma' OF 1<A12NA'§A:ead, Bapgalare 568 001.
Rep: By its '1;')_€;;1iiy.Ey{Iar:agcr

. . .AppeHaI1t:

 sri.R.v.1$:;:;dagoud.e. & Sri.B.C.Sc::etharama Rao, Advs.)

'3f_fAN1:i3_ . "

'   U Smt. Hemavathi,

2 "W/0 late Ashok,
Aged about 26 years,

C 2, Kumari Pooja,

D/0 late Ashok,
Aged about 7 years,



 A' .: ~Vé.}3;ei;:e»..a}g'é3i11stt§1e Judgment and Award dated 07.02.2005
em: MVC 1810.698/2004 on the fiie of the IV Addl.
VV  Judge, IV MAST, Guibarga, awarding compensation
. ;'IRs.3,00,00G/-» with interest at 6% pa. fmm the date of
u d V d - 'petition tiil realisation.

3. Kumari Jyothi,
13/ 0. late Ashok,
Aged about 4 years,

Since respondent No.2 and 3 are'

Minors represented by their mother” « A_ A , _ _
and natural guardian i.e., 1*-‘it res4po:§:den'{.q_ ‘

4. S1:nt.Maremma,
W/o Bheemraya,
Aged about 54 years,’

All are We .[)ot£iI(oHi Vi11éége;e”d%} V}
Chinchoii’£’a1=.1k,V ‘H.

Gulbarga Distri: e

5. Gopal Rfidtiy,” Vi.;:__ _ _ ‘

S/o \:’ansanthreda1y,

Aged about ‘ –

R/a C1:-.a11dapuI”§’
Chinchoiie’Ta{u}{‘,_ V

Gulbarga I5is£réct’– .

(OW}.:1er’~0f Tate. No.GJ«-12/T-83G5)

V _ –. , .. Respondents
(Sri.§Z€if1a1’f;:ia~Nf’aHi?§a1jun, Adv., for R1 and 4)

This Niiseellaneous First Appeal filed U/s 173(1) of MV

b»/

This Appeal coming on for orders thisfiday,
Got-A1.AGow1)A J, delivered the following:– ”
JUDGEIENT

Though this matter is listed iriv-t1ie:—-ordc:§rstfi§: V’

consent of both the iearned Counsel for «is

up for final disposal.

2. Respondent No.5, the oxw{I2sii”‘Lof”‘t{io ofi°endi,I§g vehicle

though served, reinaineifi’ ,the Tribunal.

Therefore, ?:11ei’iss?eo.i5z»1nc€%§V4of to is dispensed with.

3. In viewof tho’ assigned at para– 14 of the
i;31.pug2;11c?:¢:i¥ Eiidwiéiis {tie plea raised by the appe11a;r:.’»:-

Iiis;.1»:*{:;iir;o ., that it is not iiabis to pay the

vCOII1}’.)(EtAviS:?111ii.)VI1V’i-‘V_”ii{)V:i1=i;i}8 claimants for the reason that the

doceaseciu fiavolxied in a goods vehicle: as a gratuitous

iho Tribunal examined the said pica, afiior

“to the decisions of the Supreme Court in 1(2{}O4)

H’VV”–.._{L’ii»’¥’.M’;i::1ge i. so and 19004) ACC 524, wherein it is heid by

3:116 Apex Court that the insurance company is iiaioie to pay

componsatiozi and in turn recovor the said amount from the

i»«/

%d; §Nfd[V JUDGE

insuled if any violation of the conditions of

allowing the deceased to travel as a

The said view has been reiterated

case of Baljeet Singh Kaur’s Indview of the

insurance company to recover the insured,
in the event of any violatiolfof the policy, we do
not find any good the impugned

judgment. is devoid of

merit. Acco1’d’ingl’}f, it’: dis.n1issed’; ‘ ‘

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

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 *