{"id":178038,"date":"2010-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-11T10:41:58","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T05:11:58","slug":"the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Arali Nagaraj<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 2390 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2O1Q'E'._V'\nBEFORE   _ %  \nTHE HON'BE_E MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAG,A ARAJ  ff  _\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPE\/i\u00a7:\\:E_\u00bbAA'|v\\|:,(\u00a7.'}j'.3'23S\/260$'T..,,,_'_: 3\n\nMISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPE'AE.\"'\u00bbNOS. 1311631', 33162,\n13163, 13236, 13237, 13413.,.1\u00bb3O414, 134'3.--S.,,,13?416,\n13417-3; 13'14_8\/2005-.,,,\n\nBETWEEN:    '\n\nTHE ORIENTAL\"I-NSL}F{A.E\\iCE.COMPANY'--LTD,\"\n3 C ROAD,TL%1vIKUR  '    \nTHROUGH ITS.,RE\u00a73:ONA:_'OFE1CE \nLEO SHOPP1N.G'\u20acOM'P:,E.x  \n44-45, E:,ESIOE'NCy RO1ADcT<OSS_ --\nBANGALOREr~4 S6652-\u00bbS 1    '\nBY ITS ASST. '--MANAGE._\u00a7<T_  " \n\n1 _   APPELLANT\n "(COMMON IN ALL THE CASES)\n\n V' "(By SRLO-PTMAEJESH A"D'v)V\n\nIN' MEA N,O.1\u00a72S35\/2006\n\n SMT;:.DRAKSHAYANAMMA\n\n..  W\/O SHTVALTNGAIAH\n_ 'AGED 47 YEARS\n* \u00abR\/O DODDER1\nTUMKUR TALUK\n\n\n\nIN MFA NO.13161\/2006\n\n1. RASHMI\nD\/O RAEASHEKARAIAH\nAGED 24 YEARS\nR\/A OPRHARSHA INSTITUTE OF\nCOMMERCE, KUVEMOPUNAGAR\nTUMKUR\n\nIN MFA NO,l3162\/2006\n\n1. D N BHARATHI\nD\/O H NANJUNDAPPA _V\nAGED 27 YEARS \n\nR\/A DODDERI, BELLAVI HOBIAIAIA: \n\nTUMKUR TALUK\n\nIN MFA NO.13l63\/2006\n\n1. SHUBHA    \nD\/O H SID~'DARAM'1\u00a7i._$& g \nAGED 29.x<.EAs\u00a7s ~\n\nR\/A SHIVAKUMARASWIA-MY VN1'ILA'~:A'V\u00ab '\n\nASHOi<NVAC\u00a5i\u00bb'-\\R,,. 6"'"'"' CRCJSES \n   \n\nIN MFA N'b..1'3236z'2:O'CY.5i'~'AA'"--.,:a"' A\n\n1. SMT.G VIMAL.A  ._\n{W\/QD S SIDDARAMAIAH\n,_"*A<3E_LD 44 YEARS ..... \nA  R\/(3 DODDERI\n -.TUMK!J?L.TA--LUK & DIST\n\n NVb;Vi":3:23';\u00a5\/$2006\n\nA . I. .""?2.A31;As\u00e9+I'E\u00a7 ,D5BOUT\"49...YEARS\nA  0PPR.\"HARSHA INSTITUTE OF\n ~ .Vcc1;$\u00a2':v:E:2_C'E_,.1KUVEMPUNAGAR\n'  Tt.e.,:s%u--<:\u00a2U's2 \n\nIN 'zv;.u\u00a7A No..:3'{;.1'%\/2006\n\n SHWETHA D s\n\n A.  W\/O 9 s SIDDARAMAIAH\n" V "AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS\n R\/0 DODDERI\nTUMKUR TALUK\n\n\n\nIN MFA NO.13418\/2006\n\n1. SHRUTHI D S\nD\/O D S SIDDARAMAIAH\nAGED 23 YEARS\nR\/A DODDERI\nTUMKUR TALUK\n\n2. RAJASHEKAR A   \nS\/O ARASAIAH 7\nMAJOR\nNO,756, II MAIN ROAD\nJAYAPURA EXTENSION\nTUMKUR %_= <_'== 5\n\n_  _'*vI.._."P,ESPO?\\}D_ENTS\n1{'"R~?, COIvIMoN _4li\\EVA'L1_ THE CASES)\n\n(By SRIvuTHS:M R SHASHID'H.AVR&-Ii} SR_I.N'I~\u00bb\u00a7kA.\u00a7r'_v,ADvs)\n\nTHESE :vIFAs_:_AP._E 1=.:;LED L;\u00a7;'S~..17~3'_(VJ.) 'OF MV ACT AGAINST\nTHE JUDGMENT Al\\_\u00a3B' ,AwARD_ 'DATED 'o6'.'o9'.2oo6 PASSED IN\nMVC NOS.112'8}'1._9'9.?;:*_V 11_2.3_\/1.997, *aj11_2'5\/1997, 1127\/1997,\n1129\/1997, '1113o\/11997'; '11'I36,I1'99I7, 1124\/1997, 1131\/1997,\n1I32\/1997T,..1:'1'3.4\/'199:7,AND.1135;.1.997 RESPECTIVELY ON THE\nFILE OFZVTHE PRESIDING OFEICER,.FAST TRACK COL.$R"i"--III AND\nMACT, TUMKLJR, AwA..RDIINEIIVAIIIICOMPENSATION OF RS.45,700\/-,\n22,000\/--,'A.22,.oo0\/5,'*5_9,_56o\/5.411,500\/-, 11,000\/~, 24,000\/~ ,\n36,450\/~, \u00ab.11,~ooo\/---, ".A24,2--5o\/-- 29,250\/-- AND 28,000\/-\nRESPECTIVELY.W'ITH'--.IN'aTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE\nDATE OF P_ETITI(3i\\I_T'IVLL DEPOSIT.\n\nT'H'*EjsED%0'Me_FAS ARE COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS\n\n DAY, =TAHE_'CQUART. MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\nCOMMON JUDGMENT\n\n"A.E\u00a7ii;hese 12 Miscei\u00e9aneous First Appeais have arisen\n\nA w.:0froVI%i"'-the Same Common Judgment and respective Awards\n\n de\ufb01ed 06.09.2006 passed in MVC No.1123\/1997 and other\n\n:--~\u00a7'x'"""\\\/-w\n\n\n\n5\nconnected cases on the file of learned Presiding Officer,\n\nFast Track Court\u00bb-m and Addl. MACT, Tumkur (hereinafter\n\nreferred to as 'MACT' for short).\n\n2. The respective motor "vehicle com;oer}'sati'ion_VA'\n\ncases were filed before the MACT by \n\nin3'ured~claimants claiming compgensatiojn'__towards<.__th.\u00a7Ti'\n\nbodily injuries sustained-byggrthem inhfthe  it\/ehlgc.i'e V\n\naccident that occurred on  atfablout 3:90 pm.\non Huliyur road near:Aladelcagttefi.within the limits of\nChiknayakarzahaili policeVV_statio.n"V\u00bbin T;'u,frr1Ai<uf_'.-District which\n\nwas caused ;b$\/;g.t'i1elidriyeri 'of:"'i\\?iata.c'\u00a7or Van bearing\nregistratior-2   driving it in a rash and\n\nnegligent 'rngariinger; _A'ilV.:the's\u00bbe4 appeals are by the insurer of\n\n the gsiaifd=vehicl'e.w._.V:'Respondent No.1 is the claimant and<\/pre>\n
 .respoi:den.t\u00ab.i\u00a7l’o,Z is the owner of said vehicle in each of<\/p>\n
ffthes-el\u00abaVpperals’.~f\u00a7;;”‘The same set of facts and question of law<\/p>\n
_ are'”i’nvo’!’\\:\/ed”in all these appeals. Therefore, these appeals<\/p>\n
“.c,.:ai’esd_isposed of by this Common Judgment.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
3. I have heard the arguments of Sri.O Mahesh,<\/p>\n
learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Companyjand<\/p>\n
Sri.M R Shashidhar, learned Counsel for the <\/p>\n
claimants in all these appeals. Perused <\/p>\n
Judgment and respective Awards.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is not in disputeV__ti’:aVt the’- accidvent,l’7i;n’v~olving
\nthe said vehicle, occurred on  and place
\nand that as a result of  claimants in
\neach of the saidcases    It is also
\nnot in dispute   due to rash and
\nnegligent_dVr_iAvin::’g   by its driver and that
\nsecond:Virespon.der.u’t:-vvas\u00bb”t\u00a7o\u00e9e”own”er thereof.<\/p>\n
5. .”4_\u00a3”heV second \u00bb–re’s.pondent, the owner of the said<\/p>\n
 vehi’,c_ier’ras notchoser. to contest these appeals despite<\/p>\n
 lreceljpt _or5.noti’ce of appeals.\n<\/p>\n
  heard the Eearned Counsel for both the<\/p>\n
–V sides’, tti-e’.ori”lVy point that arise for my determination is:<\/p>\n
 u?*<\/p>\n
7<\/span>
\n“Whether the MACT is justified in<\/p>\n
directing the appellant Insurance Company to
\npay to the respective injured claimants in all<\/p>\n
the said cases the respective amounts QfT_<\/p>\n
compensation awarded by it, despite recor\u00abd.injgVV”:”~.3. <\/p>\n
its findings that the policy of Zinsuranceiithatiwei <\/p>\n
was issued by the appel.i.an_t insu.\u00abei;ee ”<\/p>\n
company was cancelled much :e.a’r_i.ie”r_to.”-th’ef~..V<\/p>\n
occurrence of the accident for’~the._ reason tha’: V<\/p>\n
the cheque that was issuedede by.”th__e’oVw’ne’rf:o’f”‘ <\/p>\n
vehicle towards premium__had,_bo_unceo?\u00ab <\/p>\n
7. The foiiowiragdfactzs are .l’n”otf’di_spute:<\/p>\n
a) _The appeillarntv.Insura’n’ce–‘iCompany issued<\/p>\n
‘inAw.iV7.’\u00bbavo’\u00a3ir’ Ofisecondiiirespondent owner Ex.D3<\/p>\n
0′ _ce’r*:ificat.efcu’m.f’po|icy in respect of the said<\/p>\n
“‘–__rnatador”‘iya’nA’:’_’yaiid for the period from 10.00
\nhvours”‘1on’V’ 17.08.1996 till mid night of
\n The owner of the said vehicle<\/p>\n
:’Vji’ss”ued Ex.D1 cheque dated 16.08.1996 for<\/p>\n
 being the premium towards<\/p>\n
‘ -insurance of the said vehicie.\n<\/p>\n
b) The said cheque came to be returned to<\/p>\n
the Insurance Company dishonoured for want<\/p>\n
of funds in the account of owner of the said<\/p>\n
4′”-‘-r\ufb01r\\””\\-r<\/p>\n
vehicie. Ex.D4 is the intimation given by the<\/p>\n
bank to the insurance company in respettsyof<\/p>\n
dishonour of the said cheque.\n<\/p>\n
Insurance company cancelfed the.-\u00a7V__p’o’l’icyy:’—._of’…._T’.<\/p>\n
insurance issued in respect of th.e..s_javi.dVveh.icieV”<\/p>\n
and Ex.D6 is the copy”‘oVf”‘canCeiiatio_h\u00ab._notice.”.<\/p>\n
and Ex.D7 is the posta’?\n<\/p>\n
the effect that said notice” was recei’ved4..by that<\/p>\n
owner on 27.O8.1996;..y_V”h’ _<\/p>\n
8. Thus, it  ‘froin.th\u00a2,,fA.\u00a7~bove undisputed
\nfacts that though they.v~-Ensiuraynce “c’erti:fi:ca.te~cum–po|icy
\n(Ex. D3) was _i     rance company
\nfor the period.V.f’roVafnh.\u00bb iff7.foa]fi’is9s:yfto ::a.o8.1997, it came to
\nbe cantfgelieydi canceliation came to be
\nintimated”to4’the’i’nsu:red_4′:anVd’ the intimation of cancellation<\/p>\n
was rgecesitx\/ed.’ by: the insured on 27.08.1996 i.e., much<\/p>\n
 Rearii\u00e9r to”fthe’~occurrence of the accident which occurred on<\/p>\n
  being so, it is further clear that as on<\/p>\n
 the ‘d.ate,._fof-occurrence of the said accident, there was no<\/p>\n
 jtfaiid insurance in force in respect of the said vehicie.<\/p>\n
‘______(–rs\\,,….\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. On careful reading of the impugned common<\/p>\n
judgment, it could be seen that MACT has recorde,dw.its<\/p>\n
finding that since the Insurance policy which <\/p>\n
the Insurance company was cancelled much ea4r__ijierjV’toxf’the <\/p>\n
occurrence of the accident ar:d””tl*.ey_ “..Aint;imla”ti%V..fofn”‘.<\/p>\n
cancellation of insurance was aiso gi__ven_ to the-Ao\u00bbwner–t.4’o~fy ”<\/p>\n
the said vehicle, the insurance\ufb01ompalhnygist.n’otnV”iiga’bl’es to
\nindemnify the owner invrespectvof Vin-3i.uries’ sustained by
\nthe respective claimantsllilnfalllt-the’said-t. who are all
\nadmittedly third pi\u00a7rties.;;l<\/p>\n
10.  r.Ie_’ai’rne\u00a7dV Counsel for the
\nappellant  strongly contends that<\/p>\n
despite recorudlinggxthe’saidffinding, the MACT ought not to<\/p>\n
 haVe._\u00a7g\ufb01:irectedV””the. _____ insurance company to pay the<\/p>\n
 res’p.ective\u00ab.yam’ounts of compensation to the respective<\/p>\n
ciairnantsin~the”said case and then recover the same from<\/p>\n
.6 the owneriof\ufb01the said vehicle and therefore, the impugned<\/p>\n
if and respective awards insofar as they relate to<\/p>\n
 Sta-idldirection deserve to be set aside.<\/p>\n
___~\u00a7”-~r’\\’_,,..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11. Placing strong reliance on the subsequent<\/p>\n
decision of Hon’b|e Supreme Court in the casoeioof<\/p>\n
Daddappa and others Vs Branch Manager,;~~:\\iati_o’na:l”<\/p>\n
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2008 AC3.V_Si$1,’!:\u00a2’ar’ned*\u00abi<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant Insurance\u00bb::A’coVmpainy.:_’:st[‘oV:ngVlVyyVi’<\/p>\n
contends that when the Insurance piolyicy. was :c’an<\u00a7el'led*: ijy V<\/p>\n
the Insurance company and 'cancellation.V_o"nit-theggground
\nthat cheque issued bY:::the  vehvivcileftowards
\npremium was dishonoured'-a_nd,"_thfe  cancellation
\nof the policy  the insurance
\ncompany  the owner in
\nrespectiof"Iiguvfrives:7'sustai.n.ed  claimant in the said
\ncases,  h '  rties.\n<\/p>\n
12.; Per’ c.ontra,: placing his strong reliance on the<\/p>\n
  decision of Kerala High Court in the case of<\/p>\n
i’lI:!_ri\u00e9-._:f:Mt1a’l’ :’i’_nsui’jarice Co. Ltd., Vs Sivankutty and Others<\/p>\n
 reporteci”i-n’:””2906 AC} 106, learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
 J’resop.ond’ent~claimants strongly contends that insofar as 3″”<\/p>\n
  parties are concerned, the Insurance Company is liable to<\/p>\n
\u00ab.-~S~—“”””\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
pay compensation despite the insurance policy being<\/p>\n
cancelled by it earlier to the occurrence of accidenVt’e’o’rie.the<\/p>\n
ground that the cheque that was issued by M<\/p>\n
the vehicle was dishonored.\n<\/p>\n
13. I have carefully  <\/p>\n
decisions relied upon by the r_\u00e9s.pectiye.__ie’a.rne:d”‘co’uiisel for”<\/p>\n
the parties. Full bench of Ke.ralV:a’v–Hi’g..h Courtvvhasjobserved
\nat para 20 of its judgncientt  <\/p>\n
“2Q;” .i\\ieit3her”  V’-three member
\ndecision ‘._.the.  in Irideijit
\nKauiis  nor from the
\n.iprOV’tisi:c?:nSA6ff ‘secti,o’ns 1’47′(s’) and 149(1) of the
\nMotor  ‘1988 do we get any
\nsupport to vh’old:.4′:th,e’Vyiew that the liability to<\/p>\n
._pay “”C0_tnpie.i1sa”tio\u00e9n” for injuries sustained to
\n i;r’h’irt\u00a7__ par”t’ies—~’ceases to exist after the
\n of the policy. The situation is not<\/p>\n
  of an owner of a vehicle not having
\nany insurance at ail for the vehicle as on<\/p>\n
.. the date of the accident, as is observed by the<\/p>\n
_ iiiivision Bench of this Court in New India
\n Assurance Co. Ltd., V Raghu, 2002 AC] 217<\/p>\n
(Keraia). We, therefore, hold that the decision<\/p>\n
\u00a2_—{.\\’-‘”\\…-“”_’V<\/p>\n
of the Division Bench of this court in New India
\nAssurance Co. Ltd, V Raghu (supra) does not .
\nlay down the correct law. The position is that <\/p>\n
the iiabiiity of Insurance company in damasg__es:’cl<\/p>\n
for third party risks continues for the entiyrei’
\nperiod covered by the policyyyin spite”‘of:’_the~\u00bb:
\ncheque issued towards payn:1en:t:,4yoj;f
\nwas dishonoured and consequ’enti.y. poiiicyyywas it E
\ncancelled by the insuqracncey cohmpaanyt
\nremedy of the insurance__corn_pany iies.a_g:;ainfst<\/p>\n
the ‘insured’ to  thl\u00e9iai7i%i(5b!._fi1T.::rJa’id by <\/p>\n
by way of compensat.ion’for  risks to<\/p>\n
be 901: reiI”,’7′:Vi’>Li.rs\u20acC5}WV”V  it it it <\/p>\n
Vans-we.:’ed as above.\n<\/p>\n
Tvhetiiiiiergistry”shali”aV.ppro>ti’Vrn’ate|y piace the file
\nbefore theffreferriin.q”_.Bench alongwith the<\/p>\n
answe_r “on IEhe’4vi’EfEf\u00e9}.3Ce for further appropriate
\n;VaCEi.0n in ‘-the’rnatter.”\n<\/p>\n
\u00bbii’ow’e.ver, the Hon’b|e Supreme Court has<\/p>\n
‘para Nos.11, 16, 20, 26 and 27 of its<\/p>\n
~ –4%.i.i’.j’;.-4.._’_”-.3udgm’e.r}t~ in Daddappas case (2008 AC3 581) as under:<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
.13<\/p>\n
11. “Indisputably, the accident had<\/p>\n
occurred on 6.2.1998 that is much after<\/p>\n
communication of cancellation of the policy”. <\/p>\n
16. “The question came is<\/p>\n
consideration before this Court in.”‘Ir7derjif’~:
\nKaur’s case, 1998 AC3 123;g(scj,’ :wh_er’e.in_<\/p>\n
was opined that a policy of in’sura.n’ce wh-ichrvis V’ K<\/p>\n
issued in public interestwyorayld prevail _over’t_:he’ <\/p>\n
interest of the insurance con1,,pany. In’t\u00ab.hat case
\na bus met with ariicid_ent.,_V_.,ifhe% policy\ufb02yof
\ninsurance was  letter
\nstating thatthe ciliegue-1hadjfbeen diisihononred
\nwas   to the
\n premium was paid<\/p>\n
  Theua\ufb02ccident took place<\/p>\n
19′-.4.’1_990.itEiesp’il’te’n,oLicing Section 64-VB of
\nthe 1938p it\/’1′.ct’,1_ having regard to the<\/p>\n
4innderlying_p’ublic’ policy behind the statutory<\/p>\n
A  ‘scifi”em’e_in respe\u00e9ct of insurance as evidenced
\n 147 and -Section 149 of the Act
\n ganucl’ i’.n–._p’a.rt’icular having regard to the fact that<\/p>\n
po.!__’i’Cy-of insurance to cover the bus without<\/p>\n
receiving the premium had already been<\/p>\n
 h”-~.i.ssued, this Court held that the Insurance<\/p>\n
it “Company was liable to indemnify the insured”.<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
I4\n<\/p>\n
20. “The ratio of the said decision was,<\/p>\n
however, noticed by this Court in New India<\/p>\n
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula,<\/a> 2000 AC] 630
\n(SC). It was held that ordinarily a liability_H_”c<\/p>\n
under the contract of insurance would <\/p>\n
only on payment of premium, if such payment.V,: 3<\/p>\n
was made a condition prec_ecle_nt  4′<\/p>\n
effect of the insurance pol_icy:.,.hliitu*.su.c’h~- <\/p>\n
condition which is intended forthe l3en.efit”oi’<\/p>\n
the insurer can be waivedv.,,4l”3”y_,it”. ‘<\/p>\n
“It was opin’e.c_|:– “\u00ab*(“i’11’_i)5:li,if,,”}5n,.the damper
\naccident, there was ;_a ‘po.l1’icy _of-.V’i_n.surance in
\nrespect of_*th_e vehi’cl-e:”‘in”.q:’uestion:,’7the third<\/p>\n
party wo._ulcl}1jh’ayevV:a, claim a,c;lai’l’ist’t*ii’e Insurance<\/p>\n
compan~,?j1cand3tyftilsgiawnerlor the vehicle would
\nhayefto bei*n”cl\u00abemnif:.ed_.in respect of the claim<\/p>\n
of th’a.t”p.arty,’uSu”bs_equent cancellation of the<\/p>\n
\u00e9ginsurance policy on the ground of nonpayment<\/p>\n
 \u20acof\u00bb–.”premium would not affect the rights already<\/p>\n
  in-.favour of the third party”.\n<\/p>\n
v_  dicta laid down therein clarifies
\ni.=ha’t; if on the date of accident the policy<\/p>\n
” ‘fi—._subsists, then only the third party would be
\nV’ “entitled to avail the benefit thereof”.<\/p>\n
r”—-(“Sr-_”‘#.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover<\/p>\n
the same from the owner of the vehicle namely respo\u00e9ndent<\/p>\n
No.2″. Such direction cannot be issued <\/p>\n
claims Tribunal or even by this Court.<\/p>\n
17. Following the above1″ob:sAervatio’ns”of:<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, I am of thefonsidered’  the<\/p>\n
appellant Insurance ‘Compagny ‘natty lial5lQ..,.to”V:pay any
\namount of compensatioh\ufb01  claimants in
\nthe said cases; .__The:’retore\u00a5,  issued by the
\nTribunal in and the
\nrespective  shall pay
\ncompensation to iiblaimants and then recover
\nthe same from” said vehicle deserves to<\/p>\n
beset aside.\n<\/p>\n
  i3_.” — lfo.rgiti:1;e’e.reasons aforesaid, all these appeals are<\/p>\n
i it  here    <\/p>\n
A it  The impugned Common Judgment and the
\nV  “re’spiective Awards in the said MVC cases insofar as
\n__they relate to the direction that the appellant<\/p>\n
\u20ac <\/p>\n
Insurance company shall pay compensation to each
\nof the claimants and then recover the same fromthe
\nowner of the said vehicle are hereby set asic_ie,V_:”3\u00a3t_*’.s
\nmade clear that respective claimants are   M
\nrecover the compensation amount from’_t’r’.-ei
\nthe said vehicle. No order as vto”‘cc.sts.T_” ht   4’<\/p>\n
Whatever amount.sisy_depos.\u00e9_te’d by oth’euadppei'[‘ant
\nInsurance Company in”‘~vs.othese a’-p_peaI_”s “shall be
\nreturned to it.    I<\/p>\n
The original _ofV:[‘thVis.v”__3uidg*m.en\u00bbt.’jshalI be kept in
\nMFA No.:132’V3:5\/20_06\u20ac aha -4.a”‘~.\u00e9;opVy’1fjnereor in each of<\/p>\n
P,<\/p>\n
the o’t!’i’er’   =7;\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-7*
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
 aw ‘,:::v<k"V:"     tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt at<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 Author: Arali Nagaraj IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2390 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2O1Q’E’._V’ BEFORE _ % THE HON’BE_E MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAG,A ARAJ ff _ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPE\/i\u00a7:\\:E_\u00bbAA’|v\\|:,(\u00a7.’}j’.3’23S\/260$’T..,,,_’_: 3 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPE’AE.”‘\u00bbNOS. 1311631’, 33162, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T05:11:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T05:11:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1989,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\",\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T05:11:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T05:11:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T05:11:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010"},"wordCount":1989,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010","name":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T05:11:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-smt-drakshayanamma-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Smt Drakshayanamma on 23 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178038","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}