LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-3

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BASANAGOUDA

Decided On February 25, 2004
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
BASANAGOUDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the civil revision petitions are preferred by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the common judgment and order dated 5. 2. 2003 passed in review Petition Nos. 55 and 54 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil judge, Senior Division and M. A. C. T. , raichur (for short, 'the M. A. C. T. ' ). Hence both civil revision petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in review Petition No. 55 of 2002 whereas civil Revision Petition No. 1022 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review petition No. 54 of 2002. Both the civil revision petitions are filed before this court under section 115 of Civil Procedure code, 1908. Review Petition Nos. 54 and 55 of 2002 were preferred by the insurance company before the M. A. C. T. under Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking review of the judgment and award passed in M. V. C. No. 639 of 1998 and m. V. C. No. 640 of 1998, allowing the claim petition of the respondent herein filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') for compensation on the ground that awards were obtained by the claimants by playing fraud. There was delay in preferring the review petitions. Therefore, the insurance company had filed application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the review petitions. The respondents-claimants opposed the review petitions by filing statement of objections. The M. A. C. T. by the impugned judgment and order dated 5. 2. 2003, dismissed both review petitions on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The insurance company being aggrieved by the above judgment of the M. A. C. T. has preferred these civil revision petitions under section 115 of the Civil Procedure code, 1908.

(3.) WE have heard Mrs. Nagarathna, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.