IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT M.F.A. NO.4043 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, BY ITS MANAGER, MANJUNATHA COMPLEX, D.O.11, INDIRANAGARA, BANGALORE-38 BY REGIONAL OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MOTOR T.P. DEPARTMENT.
5TH FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, KRISHI BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SHRI AZEEZ PASHA, S/O ABDUL KHUDUSH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/A OLD NO.67, NEW NO.108, SAREGORVANAHALLI, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, III STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BANGALORE-79.
2. SHRI K.R. RAVI, S/O RAMEGOWDA, R/AT NO.121/1, GAYATHRI LAYOUT, (HBCS), MANJUNATHANAGARA, BANGALORE-10. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.V. SRINIVASA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; V/O DATED 1/8/2013, NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.04.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.613/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES-10, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF Rs.36,330/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN COURT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The appellant-Insurer calls in question the judgment and award dated 24.04.2009 made by the MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH-10) allowing M.V.C.No.613/2008 whereby, a compensation of Rs.36,330/- with interest at the rate of 8 % per annum has been awarded.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer vehemently contends that the policy was obtained on 25.08.2007 against the cheque comprising the premium which having stood dishonored on presentation eventually, the policy came to be rescinded vide notice dated 28.08.2007 and therefore, the Insurer could not have been made liable.
3. The question of liability of the Insurer in the aforesaid fact matrix has already been decided by the Apex Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD vs. RAM DAYAL & OTHERS, (1990) 2 SCC 680, holding that the Insurer is still liable.
4. No other grounds having been urged, this appeal fails. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the MACT for disbursal as compensation to the claimants, in accordance with law.
Costs made easy.
SD/- JUDGE cbc