IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1170/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE – 560027 REPRESENTING NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI R. JAI PRAKASH - ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI ANTHONAPPA S/O ANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.2477, 16TH MAIN HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 038.
2. SRI CHIKKAMUNISWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA, MAJOR HENNAGARA VILLAGE ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE – 562 106.
3. SRI. RAMESH S/O MUNIHANUMAPPA NELURHALLY, WHITE FIELD BANGALORE – 560 066.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R. A. DEVANAND – ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B. J. MAHESH – ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.2.2017, NOTICE TO R-3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.05.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1066/2009 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,05,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. ON RS.90,000/- (EXCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN THE TRIBUNAL.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Sri. R. Jaiprakash, learned advocate for the appellant – insurer submits that this appeal is presented on the ground that the driving license of the driver of offending vehicle did not contain transport endorsement. He, in his usual fairness, submits that the matter is covered against the appellant in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 and hence appeal does not merit consideration. Resultantly appeal is dismissed.
2. Amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.
3. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A. Nos.
1/2012 and 2/2012 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, they are dismissed.
LRS Sd/-
JUDGE