- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3600 WP No. 24562 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 24562 OF 2015 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: DR.V.SHIVA KUMAR S/O SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.9/1, 7TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, FRIEND'S COLONY, KORAMANGALA, S.T.BED, BANGALORE-560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.CHETHAN., ADVOCATE FOR SIRI.T.M.VENKAT REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LEGAL MANAGER, M/S ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, S.B.R. COMPLEX, MADIVALA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 038. 2. SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.82, 'G' BLOCK, THUNGA SANKEERNA, K.S.R.P.QUARTERS, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3600 WP No. 24562 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Chethan., counsel on behalf of Sri.T.M.Venkata Reddy., for the petitioner and Sri.B.C.Shivanne Gowda., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. Notice to the respondents was ordered on 16.06.2015. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. She has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 3. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Execution Petition filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner in Ex.P.No.916/2015 on the file of City Small Causes Court, Chief Judge, Bengaluru vide Annexure-E and to quash the order dated 09.06.2015 in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3600 WP No. 24562 of 2015 Ex.P.No.916/2015 passed by the City Small Causes Court, Chief Judge, Bengaluru vide Annexure-J. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. It is noted that Smt.Sarojamma had filed a Claim Petition before the Prl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru in MVC No.8206/2007. The Tribunal vide Judgment dated 11.09.2009 partly allowed the petition, awarded compensation and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle and the Insurer. The Insurer paid the compensation amount and sought to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in view of Pay and Recover concept by filing a Execution Petition in No.916/2015. The owner of the vehicle entered appearance and contested the execution petition. The executing Court vide order dated 09.06.2015 ordered issue of attachments of movables with police help. This order is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3600 WP No. 24562 of 2015 Because of the law laid down by the Apex Court in PAPPU's case, the Insurance Company is justified in initiating Execution Proceedings for the recovery of compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. Furthermore, the Executing Court is also justified in passing the order dated 09.06.2015. I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 3 Sl No.: 19