ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HONNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the judgment and award dated 1-6-1994 in MVC No. 242/90 passed by the District Judge and MACT, Karwar, whereunder a sum of Rs. 37,000/- together with interest 9% was awarded in favour of claimant/respondent No. 1 as against the total claim of Rs. 50,000/ -.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M. Sowri Raju, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1, Smt. Preethi Dayananda and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 owner, Sri M. Swayamprakash.

(3.) THE facts of the case are interesting enough and are as hereunder :that the respondent No. 2 owner, had obtained cover note and policy in respect of his car No. CNO 2727 on 3-3-1990 and as against the payment of premium of Rs. 128/- he had issued a cheque in favour of the Appellant-Insurance Company for the like sum. That on the very day i. e. on 3-3-1990 at about 6-20 p. m. , the non-party driver, one Ismail working under the respondent No. 2, owner had caused the accident on N. H. No. 17 at Muttalli cross, Bhatkal Taluk, U. K. District resulting in death of one Biliyappa Naik, aged about 70 years, the husband of the respondent No. 1. That the respondent No. 1, the widow of the deceased Biliyappa Naik had filed a claim petition before the District Judge and MACT Karwa (henceforth in brief as 'mact') claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/ under the M. V. Act. That the appellant on the one side and the respondent No. 2 owner on the other had contested the claim of the respondent No. 1 before the MACT. The respondent No. 1 claimant had adduced her side of the evidence in support of her claim and so also the appellant-Insurance Company had adduced it's side of the evidence to deny the claim. Whereas the respondent No. 2 owner did not choose to adduce any evidence from his side before the MACT. 3a. That on appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the MACT had awarded a sum of Rs. 37,000/- as global compensation as against the claim of Rupees 50,000/- by the respondent No. 1.