SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
SMT. GIRIJA W/O LATE BHIMANNA AND ORS. – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH S/O KASHINATH AND ORS. – Respondent
MFA/201222/2015



MFA No.201222/2015

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

MFA No.201222/2015 (MV)

Between:

1.

Smt. Girija

W/o Late Bhimanna

Aged about 36 years

Occ: Household

2.

Kumari Laxmibai @ Sudita

D/o Late Bhimanna

Aged about 18 years

Occ: Student

3.

Kumari Mallamma

D/o Late Bhimanna

Aged about 16 years

Occ: Student

U/G of Smt. Girija

4.

Ghalgonda S/o Nag Gonda

Aged about 68 years

Occ: Household

5.

Smt. Banamma

W/o Ghalgonda

Aged about 65 years

Occ: Household

MFA No.201222/2015

2

All are R/o Village Kangdol

Tq. Aurad, Dist. Bidar

... Appellants

(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)

And:

1.

Ramesh S/o Kashinath @

Laxminarayan Rao Halbarge

Age: Major, Occ: Business

R/o H.No.9-4-170, Khaji Colony

Bidar, now R/o Dhanura

Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar

(owner of lorry bearing

Reg. No.MH 31 W 3449)

2.

The Branch Manager

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Branch Office, Anupama Complex

Gandhi Gunj Road

Near Basveshwar Circle

Bidar – 585 401

3.

Smt. Saraswathi

W/o late Bheemanna

Aged about 26 years

Occ: Cook in Gurukul in

Kadiyal, Tq. Bhalki, R/o Kandgul

Taluka Aurad-B, District Bidar

... Respondents

(By Sri Sudarshan M. Advocate for R2;

Sri Nagaraj Patil, Advocate for R3; R1-served)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to set aside the

MFA No.201222/2015

3

judgment

and

award

dated

29.12.2011

in

MVC

No.600/2010 passed by the Court of the Presiding Officer,

Fast Track Court-I and Additional MACT at Bidar, and

consequently allow the present appeal thereby dismiss the

claim of the third respondent/claimant and consequentially

allow the appellants to prosecute MVC No.28/2011 on the

file of Principal MACT and Principal District Judge at Bidar

by setting aside the order dated 28.08.2013.

This appeal coming on for Further Orders, this day,

the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.

The appellants are before this Court seeking for

setting aside the award passed by the Fast Track

Court-I

and

Additional

Motor

Accident

Claims

Tribunal

at

Bidar

dated

29.12.2011

in

MVC

No.600/2010 as also the order dated 28.08.2013

passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar,

sitting at Aurad-B in MVC No.28/2011 on an

application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) filed by the Insurance

Company.

MFA No.201222/2015

4

2.

The appellants herein who are the claimants in MVC

No.28/2011 contended that there was a false claim

petition

filed

by

respondent

No.3

in

MVC

No.600/2010 claiming to be wife of the deceased

Bheemanna, when in fact she is not.

3.

The appellants contend that respondent No.3 by

suppressing several material facts and also by

making fraudulent claim was successful in obtaining

an award in MVC No.600/2010 in her favour. The

appellants

further

contend

that

in

the

said

proceedings, officers of the Insurance Company have

also colluded with respondent No.3 and assisted

respondent No.3 in obtaining an award in her favour,

inasmuch as, the appellants who claim to be wife,

children, father and mother of the deceased had filed

MVC No.28/2011 on 29.01.2011 in which service of

notice was ordered on the second respondent/

Insurance Company and served on them.

MFA No.201222/2015

5

4.

The Insurance Company had filed their written

statement on 20.10.2011

by which time

the

Insurance Company had also entered appearance in

MVC No.600/2010. It was for the Insurance

Company to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal

handling MVC No.600/2010 of the pending MVC

No.28/2011 in which they were served.

5.

Instead of doing so, it is alleged that the officers of

the

Insurance

Company

have

colluded

with

respondent No.3 and helped her in receiving an

award in her favour and it is only ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top