IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A. NO.12245/2011 (MVC) BETWEEN;
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., # 19/1, 3rd Cross, Chikkanna Garden, Shankarmutt Complex, Bengaluru – 560 004.
Now Rep. by Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, # 44/45, Leo Shopping Complex, Residency Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. ... Appellant (By Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, Adv.) AND:
1. M. Ajay, S/o K. Muthuswamy, Aged about 36 years, R/at # 46, “Prithvi”, 3rd Main, II Cross, Chennammanakere Achukat, Bengaluru – 560 085.
2. Somashekhar, S/o M. Borappa, Major, R/at # 3, NGR Layout, Roopan Agrahara, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru – 68. ... Respondents (By Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, adv. for R1, Notice to R2 is held sufficient) This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated 04.06.2011 passed in MVC No.9350/2008 on the file of the Member, MACT, 10th Additional Judge, Bengaluru awarding a compensation of Rs.1,36,100/- with interest at 6% on Rs.1,26,100/- from the date of petition till the date of realization.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the insurer of offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability.
2. Heard Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurer and Sri. Shripad. V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/ claimant. Perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
3. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident occurred on 04.10.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-51- 4072 by its driver and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only point that arises for my consideration in the appeal is:
“Whether the finding of the Tribunal on liability in saddling the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle is sustainable in law?”
4. Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant submits that the respondent No.1/claimant aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal had also preferred an appeal in MFA No.8698/2011 seeking enhancement of compensation and the said appeal came to be disposed of as settled before the adalath, whereby the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was globally enhanced by another sum of Rs.30,000/- without disturbing the finding of the Tribunal on liability. Sri. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submits that the appellant/insurer has satisfied the award made by the adalath by depositing the enhanced compensation. If that is so, the present appeal does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Registry is directed to transfer the amount deposited in the above appeal to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to cost.
SD/- JUDGE LL