IN THE HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE IT)al.ed the 18*" day of I.)e<'~en1bez' 2009 :l3EFORE: V THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE : MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4595501' A BETWEEN : M/s The Orie11t:al Insuralice Cd.;Lt--.r_l.'. Divisional Office. Venkai;r.;i-zhweirzi Nile)/a. B.M.R021d. Gandhi Bazar. Ceiliewki. Rep. by its Regional Office. ' " No.44/45. Leo COH:l.l3.l§3X, . Residency Road Cr()'s_£é;' Ba_r'1g.alQi*e,.Lj By its D€13ufY Matulger-;. A 'A . ...AppeIlar1i' :31}; £3;-i3.R1ajij:1. Advzme. J 1.
“:_Sr;i ‘G<)pVe1ifa..,_'" ~ '
A./\ge.d 4l8,ye::irS.V'S,/0. i;ai.e Kala Slieiiy.
Rfa Malige Gowgizi Compomld.
. .0 ‘I’hai’m_iraila Pest;
Fle1ssanA”‘Favl__14_1gv& i)isti’icl.
‘ ‘Vfe”1’1katadri Tralisporti Co..
* -.I\§<).f28V53v'/3357.
Shfeelveiikateshwara Nilaya.
_B;M§Road. P.B.£\lo.78. Hassah.
A …Respor.1dent.s
Miscellaneous First” Appeal filed under Section
V H51 73(1) of MV Act. against. i1hejL1d;gIner1t. and award dated
31.1.2005 passed in MVC i\E0.i8l7/1994 011 the file of
the III Add}. Disi.. Judge, and l\/Iember. i’vI.AC’l’._ I)a.ksl’1ina
Kam1ada. Ma1’1gal<')rc:?. awarding compe1'1sati0n of
Rs.70.300/– with interest at 8% p.21. from the date of
petition till payment and diree1.ing the appellan"t.—-.»hereiI1
to deposit. the same.
This appeal eornirlg on for he211~i1’1g~._{_11is”~d’e1y{*the’»_
c01,1rt delivered the foilowing : *
J U DO M
This appeal is by tlleihT1:su..1fa11ee «-Cenmpviany Calling
in question the orc£VeJ’r’…’c}f_t.}’A2_e I%’xy_>/i’.:P{.”{‘.ytV.”If:’.”dated 31. 1.2005 by
which order the “I’rib’L1}’:sii’A eiaim petition
of the Ij€s§};}QIi:E(§i::6:r1t*t:’1ahT(}a1’1’t by étyyardihg Rs.70.300/–
and they1i’abvilit:y,_wfasputt rf):*.–.._I,h_e5’appetiant herein.
2. AI’?’ul1aps the outset that the impugned
jL1dgg’-n1e1’at uo1′.’. t1″1e”I’1’if’)ur1al was passed subsequent. to the
.VIh”2attt_e”tr’ I5(-3.i_ng 1*emz:u’1ded by this c()u1’t. in M.F’.A.N0.
the judgment dated 3.11.2004 and while
re’maI._j;’din.g t.he matter. this Court. had directed the
V’ ..T1jibu’1’1a1 to ecmsider the issue as to whether the
e’la1:mant, was a ‘Non Fare Paying Passenger” 01’ not and
‘”t.he.1’eaf1,er to decide the question of 1iab1’1it.y.
Subsequent to the remand. on behalf of the appellant.
33>»
rs
:_’_|
he.rein. R.W.i was examined and on beh211f(:)fR–1 before
the Tribunal. R.W.2 was examined and t.1’1erea.ft:er. the
‘i’ribL1r1al disposed of the claim petition as 2-1£'()iiesaici by
recording a finding that: the ciaimant was “a:”‘ri’;(Ji_’1?f,’a1i’e
a in 5 assen fer in the vehicle in ‘L1€Sij-i_()”I1.’=,it”‘ is this.
P Y , _ . _ ..
finding that is assailed in this’éippee1}l.yby«t.he.Insu’1*e1i1(:e*7.
Company.
3. I have heard the 1eei1*i*ied.(_roui1sei ‘t’or’.=
Insurance Company aicld they Ht.’h(5i;:gh served.
has remained absentf it i
4. ;3::yLabri?ti’ssi0n”- of ‘i’h’e'”}eai*neci eoui’1se} for the
appevllantIiisintlanee_.C{)nj;..pany is that. after the remand.
evider1ce””-wits_}3iae_ed’~° by the Insurmiee Company by
€’.P§\él1TiTi.’1.-,lA’1iI’1£A___§ R.V\/’s;”i” and 2 and it is (:}e.ar from their
Ve_x?ideVi1eev ‘t:h_¢ii:,. the ciainianf. t.rave}led as a loader in the
AiQI’I’yAC’]L1€St.i()I1 and not as a n0n–fare paying
passeriger. The further submission made is that’. even
“~,.V’i.!’1..*'[h€ claim petitiolq also, the stand taken by the
Claimant before the ‘I’ribuna} vvezs that t11(>Lig;i’i he
happened to be a driver. on the 1’e1evant day when the
$2
accident occurred, he travelled as a loader in the lorry.
Therefore. when the claimant iraveileci as a loader in the
vehicle in question and no evidence being pla.eed_lby the
claimant to prove iiliat he was travelling (in beh.alf__fofiiie
owner of the goods so as to e()1,TI1€_ Wit_’=i’1’iVl”‘1l” éX_DT€SSiOi’? 1
‘Non–Fare Paying PaSSCl1g€F;:;’:.’ ii’.1’_”‘is:
Claimant £:ravell_ed as a a
nothing more. ‘I’herefore,.the._Tzziybiinai–:rit)1y1..!ii:1 not have
put the liability on
5. ‘1’ he counsel
i:heK a_;3;)ei_’lvani;–‘i:’1s’uraz1_(:e f Company examined two
wii;nes:a:.esiivi_2:L’;- R’;Ws..’i~–.anci 2, R.W.l._ in the cécmrse of his
(3\{§:idV€i](T€. h’asj clearly stated that the claimant. on the
‘ureleyaazii–_V€i–at,e. travelled as a loader in the vehicle in
‘- ‘ii4’Lr.es’t.i($_’r_v;.._b’i;1Vt.’ not as a non»fare paying passenger. This
ey’ide’n(:e”0i’ R.W.i has remained undisturbed in the
Al ‘(i;’:toss–examination. ‘l’hei’elbre. it is established that the
(:lairnani;. though claims to be a loader. there was no
evidence to indicate that he was the loader in the vehicle
in q1.iestion. Apart. from this. e\=’en the elaimam, in the
in
«*6/5
‘J:
course of his evidence 1*ec01″ded on 9.9.2002. in his
cr0ss~exa1″nination. has deposed to the effect that. on
that day. he was travelling in the lorry and the loriy
driver also belonged to his place and his i1a’I:1e«..’is«Vvone
Bashir. This goes to show that the vehieie in”q:lu*es’i:i.0i1
was driven by Bashir and t.he .cl~ai.rnan’t 0n’l’y-‘Ltrav.eileCl_yas i. l
a passenger in the said vehicle. in the la–b_sence”r§i7.i_h~ei”e
being no evidence being plat;-ed by the to show
that he travelled a,-:’~_ a loadeif’-on-a,’behalf-0i7~the vehicle
OWHCF.
6. For”theiiraforeeaid I”6_E’iS~()v1l1l:3l.””1’i’ll’1€, Tribunal was in
f:’I’1’Cl.]” in. i*ev::Qr_ditig’..yVa~.._tinCiing to the effect that the
claimant »was- 1ii6n_?iare paying passenger in the
alziseiiee ofihere being any evidence placed in regard to
A ‘wthis_laspevei;,0f the matter. As such. the liability put on
~. a13i5_’e–llaht..wil1 have to be set. aside and it will have to
be held”I’flhat. the claimant travelled as a passerigei’ in a
A’ ‘gated sl vehicle.
The appeal t.hei”ef01*e, allowed and the liability
put on the appellang/instirancg» Company is set. aside
% \