IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA i
DATED THIS THE am DAY OF FEBRUA:RY',5 _
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs'f1cE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. Jusfrlcis;iae.'J.NAGrgaIHI$:AV%
M.F.A.NO.6624»..C)F 200*i£néNj
B BEN _
Divisional Manager, _
United India Ii1s1;raI1ee" * "
Company Lirja_*_ii;t.ed,"" * '_
Divisional 0iffie'e::,;..¢IaWa1i' Oxnpiex,
18' Floor, S113:-e1jVIv§a1'ige*t,V _ _-
Gu1ba.rga§585'1:'G~1'§ _ " __ : Appellant
(By Sri. Advocate)
T' '-1; "Srfit,"SVi;u1:1itrabai,
'.__'W/cf' Late' Revanasiddappa,
H ' , Aged.a}a_oi1t 27 years,
I-idusehoid.
Kavya,
" Prajwal,
_ "D/0. Late Revanasiddappa,
Aged about 6 years.
S/0. Late Revanasiddappa,
Aged 5 years,
4. Pramod,
S / 0. Late Revenasiddappa,
Aged about 4 years,
Resp0ndents~2 to 4 are min:Drs:.,_ 1 '
Represented by their naturalf _ A'
Guardian/ mother the resp0nden_t."1
5. Smt. Kamalabai,
W/0. Lae Manikappa,
Now aged about 58 ears, g_' A " '
Occ: Household Work-1, "
All are r/0. Kappargagfi, _ 3; "
Talukz Humnab_ad'--,. 'D§jVsv_1;_I;_'i(:t.: ;Bidar.,_«- if" .
6. Alunkumar, ____ _ v:;,__ _
S/0. Baburao Peiiaéev Patil,
Major, Ageciabout 2§*':years;t'-D.dA""'--« '
R/ 0. Madargaon,
'7. Udayakumar,
S/Q.Ka1'_y'€~1nra0, .....
Age} "B/Iajor, 'O'ccV':" Business,
Rf Kudhal1i;* Chineholi,
Distr-.1'.et.fC;i::}b'a1fga.7; - . . : Respondents
T’ Babu II; Metagudda, Advocate for R1 to R–5)
” ” ‘ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/s
I?f3{_1}«.”OF ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
— “DATED:16.01.2007 PASSED IN MVC
N’G.-57/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIWL JUDGE
DIVISION) AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
X/I
thelinstant case, the number of persons carried is six
Revanasiddappa, Indersingh and four
find substance in the contentions urged by the
‘ acoujnsel for the insurance company. Added to this, the
‘learned single Judge of this court in connected MFA
hirer or a bonafide employee of the owner or the hirer of
the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in
uniform travelling on duty may be
vehicle, the total number of persons
transport goods Vehicle
less than 990 Kgs, not m.o’re___than.one;V in’
transport goods vehicle notvléllinorep than threelfand in any
of the goods vehicle (07) persons.
10. of persons should
be caniedll set out under the said
company is bound to
indemnity in respect of death or injury
caused to the ‘person yvho was carried in the vehicle, as,
other.i__’A1na1ies. In that View of the matter, we do not
\k/
No.6628/2007 arose out of the same accident has
negatived the said contention. Therefore, \ve”do:.iiotv.find
any reason to interfere with the Judgmeiit
passed by the Tribunal and consequeritIy;’«the._appe’a}__ir§~[}
liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is The arnoiint
in deposit before this court to the
Tribunal forthwith for d .c1aiInants.
sd/-
ieose
….. E Sfi/,.
1 “*’:”*~,.
g my a.:,:-»»:~=:§