IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.190 OF 2016 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE #144, 1ST FLOOR, SHUBARAM COMPLEX M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-01 REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
(By Mr. SRIDHAR K, ADV.) AND:
1. SMT. FATHIMA MARY W/O PAKYANATHAN AGED MAJOR.
2. MARY CLIMANCY D/O PAKYANATHAN AGED MAJOR.
3. MARY SHOBHA D/O PAKYANATHAN AGED MAJOR.
4. MARIA SANJITH S/O PAKYANATHAN AGED MAJOR.
5. MARIA ANTHONY S/O PAKYANATHAN AGED MAJOR.
… PETITIONER RESPONDENT 1 TO 5 ARE R/OF HASSAN ROAD ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT.
… RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Arasikere Ex. Petition No.51/2013 order sheet at page No.20 & 21 of Annex-G dated 5-11-2015 directing the JDR to make payment of Rs.3,20,338 and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Sridhar K., learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Executing Court, by which the Executing Court has held that a sum of `3,20,338/- is due by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents were awarded a sum of `8,64,330/- by the Claims Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. In the appeal, the amount of compensation was reduced to `6,72,330/-. It is also averred that while filing the appeal, the petitioner had deposited a sum of `25,000/- on 28.09.2004. However, while passing the impugned order, the Executing Court has taken the aforesaid date of deposit as 04.04.2012. It is further submitted that an amount of `4,07,165/- was deposited on 11.02.2005 before the High Court. However, the Executing Court has taken the date of deposit of the aforesaid amount as 16.02.2012. It is also urged that amount of `57,878/- towards tax deducted at source (TDS) was also not considered. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Executing Court has not taken into account the aforesaid deposits and the date of deposits in the impugned order has been passed in a cryptic and cavalier manner. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind. Therefore, it is quashed and set aside. The Executing Court is directed to decide the amount which may be due and payable, if any, afresh by taking into account the calculation sheet which may be furnished by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV