High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt T Rathnamma W/O M S Gopal on 19 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt T Rathnamma W/O M S Gopal on 19 September, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA,  

DATED THIS THE 19TH my  2302* x

BEFORE  " T

THE HONBLE MR. J1T:$TI>CE.SE=IBH,§XSH' E§MAI§I
M.F.J.A_ NO,??.?.}f_2_dO6_{MV1  
BETWEEN  % L      %%

United India  2 ' A' '
Chittzlmagaiuff B1;%:it1£:h Managfir, jf , "" 'V

'_   
I{.M.g0rad,  ~ 
Through;  ~. _  K :51:   
United India I}}Su;£'éL'1C€« Ltd.,
Shankarafgtana B't1:i.1di;t;g,'"'---  '
M.(}.Road, B.anga;.Ic2re4--.$66' O0 1.

  ..... .. 4 :APPELLANT

 '    Advocate.)



 . , , ' Sm1:.'I'.Rathnam:ma,
. . . _   SEA 3*::ars;'W/o M.S.Gopa1,
   "R;'o_Ai_:che1inganna Street,
 __é[«~__Bé.s.s$ivar1I1aI1i, Chikmaglur,

RESPONDENT

% ” ” (By Sri.P.P.Hegde, Advocate)

This MFA is filed under Section 173(k) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 12-9-2005 passed in
MVC 356/1999 on the file of the Civil Judge,~T'{f5r.Dn) 85
CJM , Member, MACT, Oluickmagalur, .. ‘ .fia_we1*ding
compensation of Rs.51,500/- with interest atl..the {fate efé6%
BA. from the date of ptitifien till deposit. ‘ .. ~

This appeal coming on for _heaIm__’ gj
delivered the fellowirigi 1 ‘ ~ ‘7 ‘

mm~W.Gmhe
This appeal is by the
the judgment and passed in
MVC.356/ 1999 on the file

The’ that she suffereé grievous

injury onVVV’aeeet.1V1lt_of.vfaeh and negligent driving of the van

°i8–.,l.43l5 and sought for compensation of

In support of her case she got herself

e§§a._fi1ine_£l’.V’Vé§e..9’P.W.1 and produced Exs.P.1 to P. 10. The

lcovnsidering the evidence held that the clalrnam is

l 5.’ for cempensafion of Rs.5 1,500/-.

3.’l’he learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

l 3 the claimant herself is the owner of the vehicle which met

,%:;:i

with the accicieni; and appellant is the fsaid
vehicle. In case of owner of the yeiiicleg’ tlriei
liable to satisfy the claim of the i
would be only against ooyfile
insured himself. It is was taken
in paragraph 4 herself is the
reg’s1:ered owner of the “I”I.1S11I’aI1C€ policy is
issued in does not cover
risk . and as such this
respoxideot’ my any compensation to the

petitioner? $iia’?ced.’::_’that,despite a specific defence, the

_ A’ basil’ “11ot_ ____ H given any finding. The tribunal

the compensation.

.1’ixis11I’er is liable to pay compensation to the

individuais on behalf of the insured. If the injured himself is

A :.«’t?(i:e*»«i1.:’1isured, there is no liability fixed on the insurer to

= .soiist’3z the claim of the insured. This aspect of the matter is

A i ” V well settled. Since the owner of the vehicle being the

claimant, she being the insured, in my opinion, the claim

petition by the insured against the i_1_’.17s.’1.::.’rz: 1f.’.._L: “not

maintainable unless it is specially covereri-»

MFA is allowed and the order p}ass¢f3d I

set aside. The amount in depgsit

to the appellant.

Saf-

Judge