Karnataka High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs Smt Bhavya D/O Late Shivalingaiah on 12 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.9698 OF 2010(MV)
BETWEEN:
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office,
V V Road, Mandya,
Represented by Authorised Officer,
The Bangalore Regional Office,
No.144, Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Bharathi., Advocate for
Sri. Venkatesh R Bhagat, Advocate)
AND:
1. Smt. Bhavya,
D/o Late. Shivalingaiah,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o Shivapura, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
2. M/S. Vijaya Associates,
No.3815, 100 feet road,
Mandya City.
... Respondents
(R1 - Smt. Bhavya, party in person (absent):
R2 served and unrepresented)
2
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated: 02.07.2010
passed in MVC No.153/2007 on the file of Civil
Judge(Sr.Dn) and MACT, Maddur, awarding a
compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till realization.
This MFA, coming on for admission, through video
conference, this day, this Court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
challenging the judgment and award dated
02.07.2010 passed by the MACT, Maddur in MVC
No.153/2007.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
insurance company contended that the claimant was
traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger
and as per the insurance policy the offending vehicle is a
goods carrying commercial vehicle and since the claimant
was a gratuitous passenger, the insurance policy is not
covered. The insurance company could not produce the
copy of the insurance policy before the Tribunal and hence
the Tribunal fastened the liability on the insurance
company. In view of the above, the matter may be
remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
3. None appeared for respondent No.1. Respondent
No.2, even though served, has remained unrepresented.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
Perused the judgment and award.
5. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company
neither examined any witness nor produced any document.
The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the parties
and the documents produced held that the insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation.
6. The appellant filed IA No.1/2016 for production of
additional documents. The same is allowed by this Court
by order dated 12.01.2021. In view of the above, the
matter requires reconsideration before the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is set aside.
The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration. The Tribunal is directed to consider the
additional documents produced by the parties and pass
appropriate orders after hearing the parties afresh.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to the Tribunal, forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeal Misc.No.
20124/2010 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cm/-
