Harini Shivananda, Advocate for R2;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED mis THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER.«j2';?§OE:3;--,,A'
:PRESENT:
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE41\I.I';'..Vifl§;Ti'§L
'AND;
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTI(iE:"'K_,N. " V
M.F.A.N()..11613--(§1f'.2'0Q6
BETWEEN: 1' " ' " .
Subramani' @ Su:b'raf1*;a¥r1ya';«.."~--.V
S/0. Anjappa; aged abbut year9,=
R/at, «KOna'd,a..sanapgra, V ' »
Virgdnaga1f,.POS'L~ 4'
Bangéi0r'é 4*:-5_60 0494 "
= _ _ -- Appellant
{By SI'i '._N.'S.B1131.':"'}}d".IDCaf[€'} ' '
AND: 'V
1. _ -- Basal"i4f;g§1ppé;', S.'/*0.' éayabanna.
Major, R/ Roogi Taluk,
'lam: msmct. """ "
u'('1"'1:: New._Ii;.d1a Assurance Co. Ltd,
' " Repi'e.ser;ted by its Manager.
_ R/_at'ei.--«%"Floor, KIADB Complex,
BCn1r1"1'asandra,
Bafzgaiore -- 560 099.
., Respondents
_ Notice to R1 dispensed with]
$**$*
iw
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act aga..iCns’tC*the
judgment and award dated: 26/06/2006 passedin’
No.2040/2005 on the file of the Mem’oe–i~’_,
Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area-._ E%angaJ.ore_g
[SCCH.5), partly allowing them _c1a.i1_1’1W””pe_tition’_’ .Vfo_r ”
compensation and seeking “enhaniCe:_r1entV of
compensation.
This MFA coming CPiearin,<§-. sdayf
K.N'.Keshavanarayan__a, J ., g_de;liv_e'red the 'folglovfing:
This isdirected against the
judgment,a'r:d"'award~t.jdated'*26.¥t?5 June 2006 passed in
"file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribouriallwlegl/';._v of Small Causes, Bangalore
_____
it f'§he:'_1..appel1ant filed claim petition under
of the Motor Vehicles Act against the
V'~.__v"*resporidents herein, seeking compensation of Rs.10
it the personal injuries sustained by him in the
it motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 7:40 P.M.,
"E
\ .
‘W
accident and in this regard, the Tribunal has failed to
notice that the appellant Was travelling in the
question as representative of the owner
carried therein. as such, thednsurer ‘tow
indemnify the insured in respect “the'”c’lairri..
appeliant.
6. On the other.handt,-“‘th.e’-learnedcounsel for the
Insurance Company judgment of
the ‘absence of any
pleadingsi’and’–. appellant was proceeding
in the vehioie’Vin_pqniu’estion as-representative of the owner
of the goods the Tribunal is justified in
disniisspingx tihpeciaiin petition against the Insurance
and thewsaid judgment does not call for
interierer1Vce.lV133:” this Court.
. ?’V._g the facts and circumstances of the Case, the
l .. only point that arise for our Consideration is,
VVhether the Tribunal is justfied
dismissing the claim petition against
Insurance Company ?
Admittedly, the Vehicle in question iswa'”‘aust_o””.
(three wheeler}. At the timeh-Aoff_’_’ii~he
appeliant was proceeding..,:v”in_ the ‘auto.’=i’
Neither in the claim vgetitionl—nVoi:-in’ oralevidience, the
claimant has stated in the vehicle
in question of the goods
carried it was his specific
case “accident, he was proceeding
in thehgololds goods vehicle is not permitted
to carry la-my’ passe.n,gers nor the insurance policy in
such’ **** ‘goods vehicle covers the risk of
carried in the goods vehicle. Under these
circumstaiuies. we are of the opinion that the Tribunal
is justified in holding that the Insurer of the vehicle in
‘question is not liable to indemnify the insured in
___l”espect of the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal has
not Committed any error of law in this behalf.
Therefore. there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/~,f ri§5*r
sJUDGECg*);r
BMV*