Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Smt Mary Bernadette And Others vs M/S Life Insurance Corporation Of India

High Court Of Karnataka|11 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.63-67 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MARY BERNADETTE, AFTER MARRIAGE NAMED AS MARY VINOCENT @ K.LALITHA, W/O LATE VINCENT DE.PAUL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
2. SMT. LARA MARIA PRRETHI, W/O SRI. RAJU & D/O LATE VINCENT DE.PAUL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
3. SRI. PRADEEP SUGANAND, S/O LATE VINCENT DE.PAUL, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
4. SRI. XAVIER PRAKASH, S/O LATE VINCENT DE.PAUL AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5. SRI. FRANIS PRASANNA, S/O LATE VINCENT DE.PAUL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.25,PADMA VILAS, 3RD CROSS, M.V.LAYOUT, CHURCH STREET, LINGARAJAPURAM, BENGALURU-560 034.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA GOPAL RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA ESTABLISHED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, UNDER THE L.I.C. ACT HAVING, ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICES AMONG OTHER PLACES AT J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU AND ALSO AT CHENNAI, DIVISION NO.1, CITY BRANCH, NO.8, CHENNAI.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR.K, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THE SAID MISC.NO.9/2000 PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW AND DTD.16.12.2011 VIDE ANNEX-M SUPRA; DIRECT THE COURT BELOW TO RESTORE THE FILE AND TRY ACCORDING TO LAW THE SAID O.S.NO.9142/2007. AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a money suit in O.S.No.9142/2007 are knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 16.12.2011, whereby their Miscellaneous No.9/2000 seeking restoration of their dismissed suit has been rejected by the learned trial Judge. A copy of the said order is at Annexure-M to the writ petition. After service of notice, the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India having entered appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel resists the writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case:
(a) one Mr. Vincent De Paul had bought the insurance policy on 28.02.2002 and he died in a vehicular accident on 29.11.2004; the maturity date of the policy was 28.08.2002 but the policy amount became payable on 29.11.2004 because of the untimely death of the insurer;
(b) the widow and other L.Rs. of the deceased insured had filed the subject civil suit for a money decree against the LIC of India founding their claim on the insurance policy; the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.01.2009 holding that the petitioner-plaintiffs were not interested in its prosecution;
(c) the Miscellaneous Petition No. 9/2010 was filed on 22.12.2010; the same came to be dismissed on 16.12.2011 on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of the plaintiffs on the eventful day i.e., the day on which the suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. That is how the petitioners are before this Court. After service of notice the respondent being represented by the counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petitions contending in support of the impugned order.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, reprieve needs to be granted because:
(i) apparently there is a policy of insurance and insured is dead in a vehicular accident; the respondent is a statutory corporation which cannot resist a litigation on technical grounds; and, (ii) there is a triable suit on merits and therefore regardless of the delay in seeking its restoration, the dismissal of the suit needs to be set aside; if the suit is restored and tried on merits, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent statutory corporation; justice of the case warrants restoration of the suit.
In the above circumstances, the petitions are allowed; impugned order is set at naught; petitioners suit in O.S.No.9142/2007 is restored to the board for trial & disposal on merits, in accordance with law.
The learned trial Judge is requested to accomplish the trial and disposal of the suit preferably within an outer limit of nine months. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Smt Mary Bernadette And Others vs M/S Life Insurance Corporation Of India

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
11 October, 2019
Judges
  • Krishna S Dixit