IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA MFA No.5500/2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
MAMTA V HABIB W/O VENKATESH R HABIB AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT F.1, GREEN COURT APARTMENT SRINIDHI LAYOUT, 8TH MAIN ROAD VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE - 97 (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD NO.109, SSI AREA DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR 5TH BLOCK NEXT TO DASHARAM BANGALORE – 560 010 BY ITS MANAGER 2. MR. GANGANARASIMHAIAH MAJOR, R./AT NO.63/4 1ST MAIN, 9TH CROSS GOVINDARAJANAGAR VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 40 ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.P. VENKATAPATHI, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DT:04.12.2017) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.3806/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST A.C.M.M., & 23RD ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed the Tribunal in MVC No.3806/2012.
2. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and award has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant by holding that the appellant has failed to prove that she had sustained injuries on 25.05.2012 at about 12.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper bearing registration No.KA-05-B-6160 by its driver near Vidyaranyapura Main Road and has held that she sustained injuries on account of self fall from the bike. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award of the Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.
3. The Insurance Company-respondent No.1 is represented by its counsel.
4. As notice issued to respondent No.2, owner of the offending vehicle on the first occasion, it was returned with a postal shara ‘addressee left’ and on the second occasion, it was returned with a postal shara ‘no such person’, the appellant was permitted to take out notice to respondent No.2, owner of the vehicle by substituted service through paper publication.
5. Sri.Nayak appearing on behalf of Sri.Shripad.V.Shastri, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that he collected the draft notice and handed over the same to his counter part to get it published in the newspaper through the appellant and inspite of his counter part informing the same to the appellant, appellant did not show interest in publishing the draft notice through paper publication.
6. His submission is placed on record and the appeal is dismissed as against respondent No.2 for not taking steps inspite of granting permission to the appellant to take out notice by substituted service through paper publication.
7. In view of dismissal of appeal against respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle, the appeal preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing her claim petition does not survive for consideration against respondent No.1-insurer of the vehicle.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VM