IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10229/2010 (MV-INS) BETWEEN:
M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SVR COMPLEX, NO 89, 2ND FLOOR HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-68 ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. H.N. KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. K. LOKESH SINGH @ LOKESH S/O B.L. KRISHNA SINGH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O DOMMARAHALLI VILLAGE BYRANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 2. SRI. GOVINDARAJU S/O CHINNASWAMY MAJOR, R/O NO.102 4TH MAIN, KALASIPALYAM BBANGALORE-02 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. N. GOPALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V.O.DATED:14.01.2016-R2 IS DEEMED TO BE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.06.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.2856/2008 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,64,814/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. (EXCLUDING COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED TOWARD FUTURE MEDIAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Heard Shri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri N. Gopala Krishna, learned advocate for respondent No.1.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company has challenged common judgment and award dated 26.06.2010 in MVC No.2856/2008 passed by VII Additional Judge, Member MACT-3, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
3. The claimant – Lokesh Singh presented his claim petition on the premise that he had sustained injuries in an accident involving a bus belonging to respondent No.2. On consideration of material on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,65,814/- with 6% interest p.a.
4. Insurer’s appeal in MFA No.10230/2010 challenging MVC No.399/2009 filed on the premise that bus did not have a valid Permit has been dismissed by this Court.
5. Shri H.N. Keshava Prashanth, learned advocate for the appellant submits that insurer has complied with the award.
6. In this appeal also, the solitary ground urged is that the bus did not have a valid Permit. This Court has dismissed the aforementioned MFA by rejecting the very same contention urged on behalf of the Insurer. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Amount deposited by the insurer shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV