High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Gangavva vs Sri Kallappa Basavannappa on 27 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Smt Gangavva vs Sri Kallappa Basavannappa on 27 August, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF  * 

BEFORE, 

THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE  B0I§Aj.i$r,a{A[[ES%SES.E,.jA%E

M.F.A. No. 148:§l'-#2008 (M'VVDVVb".:'  

BETWEEN:

SMT GANGAVVA ..    
W/O BASAVANNEPPA MA-D_IWAL.AVR ' 

AGED AE0UT..48._Y-ERAS _.   
occ HOUSE?-IVOLSJ DRY'.CL1EANER, " 
R/0   _   
BELGAUM.    '   ._ " ' . _;'.\:>z.">£'s,::":%'\i"'§

(By Sri. SANJAY S _KAN1"!¥_GE;_Iné1V, 

AND

1. SR1 KALLAPPA BASAVANNAPPA
--'~MAD1w;aLAR, AGEb--vA,I3_Q£s'T 24 YEAR
 0CcBUS1'NES"S, R/O ANKALAGI

BELC;AUEI.r;,"»--«V_¢ "

  THEEDI_V1SEO1$IE}§L--LEVMANAGER

 THE OF{}EI"lTAL INSURANCE co LTD

 FLOOR; SHANABHAG CHAMBERS

 ' E<LI.RLU--SKAR ROAD, BELGAUM.
 * _   ....RE3SPONDENTS

 (Ey"S§§i_'.V'1sf_.L.PAT1L, ADV. FOR R2}



{Q

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) op' MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED::9/Io'/2007
PASSED IN Mvc No.233S/2004 ON THE F1LE..O1?"'<--ThiE

PRLCIVIL JUDG}33[SR.DN) a ADDI,.IvIAcT, GoI<Ar<1,I'_yI;§A_Ie%I*I_._Y.I
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPE-i§JSAfF.I§JN;'I _ -I *

THIS APPEAL COMING (3N--"E-o--a ADM:1'S*sI'oI\'Iv?I;I~rI'is it

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE E._EI,;3vzI:%:o:--._  

JUD€3:I_'{_[EN'i"' 

The appe11ant~"W._ is  C'C'}aimant"~e  MVC
No.2338/2004. The J .iTrihun:a1  'awarding the

compensation'   vinsurance Company
from the   'compensation. The
 for fastening the
liability' Jon'  Company and also for

awarding thejust" compensation.

   the learned counsel for the parties and

iperusecl t'hjei..appeaI papers.

 as  3";:With regard to the accident, which occurred on

 /"if/2006, the Tribunal after quantifying the

it "compensation has held that the Insurance Company

would not be liable to pay the compensation. In this

i
52
is

wwtr

aw'

=*¢



regard, the Tribunal in fact has proceeded on the basis

that the fare paying passengers in the vehicle wouldnot

be covered under the policy. In that context, 

referred to have been considered by the   hi

this regard, the fact which cannot  &_disp;L1te'd_is"that';

the claimant is the mother of thefirstilrespondent; 

is the owner of vehicle. the.occ1§y.pa”ntl”of the
vehicle, when the acci’dent_«”hade–:lO.C-curred and she has
tendered her evidence as .V.hile_~.considering the

evidence tendered:’bylihergther has considered

as if staitieldlthat she was travelling
in the vehicle «rare. In fact, perusal of the

evidence wloulid ‘in’dic’ate”:that she was only travelling in

itV.”-the”=vehic1el’ and the mother of the owner of the

7–.ve;lf1iclev..:’in”question. Hence paying fare in any event

would no’t.arise. In that event, she would only travel as

Vlphipermitted passenger of the owner of the vehicle. if that

r._l’b_le”the position, nature of the policy requires to be

“e§§amined. The Tribunal in fact has taken note of the

policy, which was marked as EX.Rl. As the documents

is available before this Court, the Lower Appellate Court

have been received, a perusal of the policy would

indicate that it is a package policy in respec’ti:’of’p:’-the

vehicle in question. Though initially, thereuyverretiyi if

contention even with regard to the “pacl<'i:ageipo}icy;–:the1

position is now accepted by

that in respect of the packageT"p.olicy,*–the- of V

the vehicle would be.coyerethiTheref0.If€, invthis instant
case, the judgement of the extent of

exonerating the'~lrisuranCe–~Co1npai*1yis set aside and it

is held iiii iithat} _pthe'fr4ii"1ns:irance"WCompany is liable to
reimburse the conipensatitorj.

With ._:re’gard.”tolvthe quantum compensation as

i the Tribunal, it seen that the nature of the

established by the documents at

Ex.P.5, §vl1eAr*ein the claimant had suffered fracture and

:jv.Ias_ also patient for about six days. After taking note

_i ofiitlte injuries sustained and evidence tendered, the

“disability has also been reckoned and in respect of the

heads of loss of future earning and pain and suffering

o

LA

the compensation awarded is appropriate. However, in

respect of the head of loss of arnenitiels;:if”L–«.tE*i.¢

compensation is awarded on the lower side ii

a sum Rs. 15,000 / — is awarded. vFu1’t–her,7.¢ to_.Coir1per1-s’ate~;

short fall under the other heads of

awarded.

5. The clairrialii _ entitled to
compensation of.Rs.2:5′,”OO.Q’/–i ‘with. intériesit at the same

rate and same t-awatrdedi Tribunal. The

compensationl:”oi;igiha1_ly.::aiWar:de_d:i’by the Tribunal and

the ‘how be deposited by the

Insurance’ a period of 6 weeks from the

dateéofv receipt “oef_e_opy of this order. On deposit, the

a:r;r1’eunti,_Vs’h.a1l’be_ disbursed to the claimant.

A InV___ter.rrLsiof the above, appeal is disposed of.

gs:

2:33
: ‘””r~
W3

~ -Vnlib