The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Jayamma K.S
2022 Latest Caselaw 11058 Kant

                            1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              M.F.A.NO.2213 OF 2015(MV)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, RUB BUILDING,
A.A.CIRCLE, B H ROAD,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
                                             ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.POONACHA.M.U, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT.JAYAMMA.K.S.,
       W/O J.P.MANJAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       R/AT AMEER COMPOUND,
       MAIN ROAD, THILAKNAGAR,
       SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.

2.     SRI.SUNILKUMAR.K.H.,
       S/O HUCCHAPPA,
       AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
       R/AT DOOR NO.H-8, TMT SHED,
       JOGFALLS, SAGAR TALUK,
       SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLE   ACT   AGAINST    THE   JUDGMENT    AND   AWARD
DATED:08.1.2015 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.152/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE   II  ADDITIONAL    SENIOR   CIVIL  JUDGE,   AMACT-8,
                                2

SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.15,000/-
ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 6%P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Instant appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and

Award passed in MVC No.152/2013 on the file of II Addl.

Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT-8 at Shivamogga. MVC

No.152/2013 was clubbed with MVC No.153/2013 and was

decided in terms of common Judgment and Award dated 08 th

January 2015. The insurer has questioned the liability and

had preferred MFA No.2215/2015. The said appeal is

dismissed on 27.11.2017 rejecting the contention of the

insurer on the liability.

Under the circumstances, the present appeal

questioning the liability does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE bnv