The Manager vs Marigowda
2022 Latest Caselaw 12780 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.4171/2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, S V NILAYA,
B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573201.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, #44/45,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560025.                               ...APPELLANT

           (BY SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MARIGOWDA,
       S/O LATE MARIGOWDA,
       MAJOR, R/O HADANUR VILLAGE,
       SEELANERE HOBLI,
       K.R. PET TALUK,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.

2.     K.J. VIVEKANANDA,
       S/O LATE K.J. BORALINGEGOWDA,
       NOW AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       R/O # 409, KRISHNARAJAPET TOWN,
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426.              ...RESPONDENTS

            (BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
                 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.04.2019,
              NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                 2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.2.2014 PASSED
IN MVC NO.11/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC, K.R.PET, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.15,000/-
WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS
REALISATION OR DEPOSIT.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 19.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.11/2007, on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R.Pet, ('the Tribunal'

for short).

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that in connected matter M.F.A.No.174/2012 dated 18.10.2022,

a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the judgment and

award of the Tribunal and remitted back the matter to the

Tribunal for fresh consideration since the Insurance Company

had challenged the very involvement of the vehicle in the

accident. In this case also, the very same ground has been

urged and hence the matter may be remanded back to the

Tribunal for fresh consideration.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not

dispute the very fact of remanding of the matter.

5. When such being the case, when the Insurance

Company has disputed the very involvement of the vehicle in the

accident, the matter has to be considered afresh in view of the

judgment of this Court passed in M.F.A.No.174/2012 dated

18.10.2022. Hence, the matter is remanded back to the

Tribunal for fresh consideration by setting aside the order passed

by the Tribunal.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the

Tribunal dated 19.02.2014, passed in

M.V.C.No.11/2007, is set aside and the matter

is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh

consideration.

(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the

Tribunal on 06.12.2022, without expecting any

notice from the Tribunal.

(iv) The amount in deposit is ordered to be

refunded to the appellant, on proper

identification.

(v) The Registry is directed to transmit the records

to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD