IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.1627 OF 2018 (GM - AC) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., N.R.SQUARE BRANCH, BENGALURU – 2.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, MOHAN P REVADI.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.C.SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. NANCHARAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE N.RAMESH, 2. MASTER:NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, S/O LATE N.RAMESH, 3. KUM.VIDYA, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, D/O LATE N.RAMESH, 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE NARAYANASWAMY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.51, C/O SUDHAKARA REDDY, KOPPA GATE VILLAGE, NISARGA MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5. SRI.M.MANJUNATH, MAJOR IN AGE, S/O MAHADEVAIAH, M.KRISHNASAGARA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
1.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.R.LAKKE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R1 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2018 IN W.P.NO.2145 OF 2018 AND TO GRANT THE PRAYERS MADE IN THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru by its order dated 21.10.2014 in MVC No.6043 of 2006 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the claimants, was allowed by granting compensation. The respondent No.1 therein being the insurer was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount and apportionment was ordered. Thereafter, a review petition No.3 of 2015 was filed seeking review of the said order. The same was dismissed by the order dated 05.11.2016.
Questioning the same, writ petition in W.P.No.2145 of 2018 was filed. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the review petition was ill-conceived and also held that if the insurer had any grievance against the award passed by the Tribunal, then a remedy of filing an appeal against the said order is available under law. Hence, on these grounds, the writ petition was dismissed. Questioning the same, the instant appeal is filed.
2. Sri.B.C.Seetha Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous and that in terms of the evidence led therein, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. There is a difference in the findings recorded which has not been properly considered.
3. However, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. If at all the insurer is aggrieved, he can file an appeal against the said order. Even on merit, there is no error apparent on the face of the record that warrants interference by the Tribunal. Hence, the order of the Tribunal in the review petition cannot be found fault with. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of main appeal, IA.2 of 2018 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and hence, it is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB