IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25m DAY OF AUGUST,» ad "'
BEFORE V »
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. Juswxes A58... §3o2lxNN.q~.l H
M.F.A. No.93.26L/2ool4.g1v'm
BETWEEN: 'H
The Divisional Manager V _ M _
The National Insurance CojLtd'.,
1732, lst floor, Ramdev GalhL_._'
Belgaum, Represezitlevd 'oyjlits é
The Ass. Admini?_str?§T>i'Ve o1§fici<:r"' "
National Insu_:a:j'ce k'--2e;7_I.t'd..:_...__ V' ' ~
Bangalore Regjor:al_.vOffi'Ce _
Subharam. Co_niple;<i*::;:_ ~ V
No.144, :v1.G.Roao,d_, '' _ .
Bangalore--1.*. ' . " H ' Appellant
(By Sri.N .R.Ku_ppel1is, 'lS'-:S'~;'K§o_iViwad, B.C.Seethararn Rao
Associates and "IVl_.V; Pcjonachva Adv.)
A. .....
Lagammavva
'' ._ "W_'/«o:"E*lan_ar{1a'nt Basagouclanavar
'Aged 49 'years
Gee: Zrlouse hold work.
H H K i' 4." ' A. Smt. Bagavva
_ W'/_.o. Basappa Basagoudanavar
Aged about 86 years
§ Oec: House hold work.
F'
L»)
9-:
I4
Kumari Mangala
D / o. Hanamant Basagoudanavar
Aged about 34 years
Occ: Student.
Kumari Nirrnala
D/o. Hanamant Basagoudanavar
Aged about 32 years
Occ: Student.
Kttmar Suresh
S /o. Hanamant Basagoudava
Aged about 30 years
Occ: Student.
Kurnar Shrikrishnav . _ V
S / o. Hanamant Basagoudavarf. }
Aged about 26 years A :
Occ: Student." V 0'
KumariJayas'}1ir _ V g_ ~ t
D / o, .Hanamant;;B.asago;.idava.r.,..
Aged aboAut{23 years.'
Occi. St'=.1de.nt.* -, "
All are Vre_sidi_r1g' Itta'rL;igeri
Raibag Tahtk, Belgaurn' District.
Ramesh Chanaldasappa Gondi,
, *.FaLh_er.'s name not known
Ma_;ior,,_OcC:,_Bt1siness
"I2/at"Httn_sttye'1 PG.
.0 'Gokak .Ta1'_u;i<
B'e1gafumv District.
. Respondents
This VNIAAFA filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the
ment and award dated 20.9.2004 passed in MVC
No';_634*/93 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 85 AMACT,
E'
.___"Gokak, Awarding compensation of Rs.1,98,600/-- with interest
.._4'att--S°/o 13.51. from the date of petition till 24.8.2001 and at the
i..«J
rate of 6% from 23.7.2003 till its realisation and directing the
appellant herein to deposit the same. '
This appeal coming on for hearing this dagg-thve__l__ice.i_;rt.
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
The appellant Insurance Company “calledii~.jn”~r
question the judgment and award°–dated SMVC
No.63-4/1993. The Tribunaxl afteriliaiiiarding thieicornlpensation
of Rs.I,98,600/– with inlterest held that the
appellanblnsurancegj of the vehicle
is liable to reir11’biir_see.th_e co.na_pe~nsé3ti”c.n. ‘
2. Counsel for the appellant. The
respondents pthougl3.VVseifVed’ are’ «ulnrepre sented.
3;; ii ‘In fact;-.on_____hearing the learned Counsel for the
ll’-appellant perusing the appeal papers including the records
receivledp«frorrltheTribunal, the fact relating to the accident and
V V the death ‘tlheieafter is not in dispute. The only question for
4ii”lv.lic*oghsidreration is as to Whether the appellant–Insurance
l_lCorr:_pa1i’j/ could have been made liable to reimburse the
dcornpensation in the facts and circumstances arising in the
:§_§;*-e’§–«MW
instant case. The pleadings of the claimant in the claim petition
would indicate that there is no dispute that the deceased was
travelling in a goods tempo bearing No.KA~23-2955. vffihielyfact
which is also evident is that the deceased is not tleic-.ien*i_ployee.
of the insured but was employee working in
his place of work the deceased had u{z;t{};éiiec: ..in._thie
which met with an accident.
4. The appellant~Insur_aVncVe contended
before the Tribunal that*–.._they’i._are’notflriable for payment of
compensation since thereA.is..y_io.1a’t–ion oi”t.h’¢’*5er’:ns of the police
even though the qiiiestioniwas”covered by the policy.
In so fari_as–.the thlatrthe Vehicle in question is a goods
Vehicle and”rt_hat_ was not the employee of the
insured and also”th.at the deceased was not accompanying any
goods in the Vdehvicle is evident from the very discussion made
the evidence tendered. Therefore, the fact
V is clear that the deceased was unauthorised passenger in the
it ‘ ‘-Vyehicle.
5. The Tribunal, in fact, after having accepted these
aspects of the matter has thereafter proceeded to hold the
insurance company liable only by noticing the fact that the
insurance company had. not proved that the deceasvedylrazgs a
fare paying passenger in the vehicle. The Tribun_a’l”i’n-«lfastilizas _
made specific reference that the 131 respondent.in.y.si;redi.:had I’1l3lL” ..
been examined to state as to whelthertighje llpersonlwhio was
travelling was a fare paying pass_enger}’g_T’hus, th’leATVribun;al.cn”‘xg
coming to the said conclusion noticed’ that ‘thellnsurance
Company has collected sum Rs;’5.Q/¥’aS premium towards
non-fare paying passengers and has held
since extra collected in respect of non–fare
paying passenger; Insurance Company is liable to
pay compensation. _
., In this regard, it is to be stated that the said term
thellllthell_:present case would not be applicable for the
reason, not at all the case of the claimants that the
‘d.eceaseCiyVWias accompanying the goods in the vehicle. In that
“circumstance, when it is established that the vehicle itself was
lflgoofids Vehicle the question of any passengers travelling in the
E’
11″”;
Q?
~%’:”
6
Vehicle would not arise except if they were the permitted
passengers to accompany the goods and neither farerpaying
passenger nor a gratutious unauthorised passenge1″.w’oijl.dl’vbe
entitled to be covered under the said clause. Tltiereiflorelg
Tribunal was not justified in fa.steni1′:g.pthe llvl8tll’Dillvli’ij:,»7VlOI1:}tl3..€’
Insurance Company.
7. Hence, in so far asrthe dirCCtiorA1p”.f;ss’;1ed”‘ to the
appellant herein who is: .reSpo.nde.n_:t– ‘Noll :5′ the said Claim
petition to deposit the Lasipde and it is held
that the 13’ respoIide.nt jeornpensation to the
claimants. to recover the
compensation The amount said to
have beenlde_posited_ Principal Bench be refunded to
_ V the appellant.
terms of the above, the appeal is allowed impart.
35%;/W
FELZEEQE