IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAI)
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY 01:' sE1ftEMBE~?,~-2998-~11: "
BEFORE V
THE HOWBLE MR.JUsr:£:}3 K.k.e.mAnmAAM'%%A "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP£5E.ég,_:§o.§39g:26o7%.;
BETWEEII:
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE c0. y1fD; ,_' i "
HUBLI 13.0.,
THROUGH ITS REG»IO1'}AL OFFICE; % V:
LEO SHOPPING .C(}.MPLE}__{,~ «
No.44/45, RESIEDENCY"E-E{)AD,j--..K '-
BANGALDRE-560 .. _
REP. BY rrs~Asm.1x¢AN'w,r..3yER,.
K.G0v1NmRA.jAN'."V'._~.V APPELLANT
Sri.l\i;F'-4I{UPI5Ei;L?R,'};DV. FOR SR1 B.C.SEE'i'HARAMA
RAG, v.--;--V _ e
.--a....-----..-....
"
w/ 0 .~LA'1.'E. RAVI. B-.aDAN GKAR
KALAL, AGED' YRS.
% , :2_.MAS'1'ER" VINAYAKA,
, s;;s.)V.z.s.':§.ra:.12zxv1 BABANKAR
@"i{ALAL;A_«AGED ABOUT 12 ms.
V -.g"Bt}'r H ARE R] QKURUBARA om,
" ._ QHARWAD.)
-M'RiT'HYUNJAYANAGAR,
(R-2 MINOR REP.l3Y HIS MOTHER
R»~1)
SBHARAMAJI KASHAQPPA KALAL,
MAJOR,
R/(IHEREPET, HUBLI. R';-:SPoND:e::*fi'r'SA'VV'.'gf__j: r.-
(By Sri.SACHIN.S.MAGADUM, _....4ADv;"'"*.ié5eé"'V Sm" V
VIGI-!NESHWAR.S.SHAS'I'RY, ADV. i3''OR3. -: R:¥i«,_ . "'SR}
B.R.SA'I'ENAHALLI, ADV. F OR R-3, R-2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. i7:3(1) 015 Acifiaealmsr
THE JUDGMETN AND AWARD PASSED IN
MVC.NG.112/99 ON THE 'FEE OF VTHF; .I ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), CJM, ADDL.MACT,- '--SDH£lRV«l.?}&D; _ AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.68,8(}O)'~_ VJITH AT THE RATE
OF 9%; RA. FROM '1'_I°{'E_.DATE"'GF: PETITION .fI'I»'£.L THE DATE OF
REALISATICSN. " " - fit
THIS }iPFEAL- FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
comm' DELIVERED THEFOLLQWING:
» filed by the insumr challenging the judment
a3::d the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) S cm,
NO.112./99 whereby the liability was fastened
to indemnify the owner of the vchicic to the extent
]-- payable to the claimants] respondents along with
T Sgexfist at 9% pa.
2. The short point involved in this appeal is Whether the
judgment and award passed by the Court below rasteni:§g–.ithe
liability on the insurer of the vehicle is perverse or illegal? ~
3. The brief facts of the case am that on the K
13/10] 1998 the deceased Ravi
said to have purchsed 60 sheep
Regn.No.KA.25.32’76 which was by” on
account of the rash and negligent its a<iriver;V:tla.c sand'
truck turtled and 35 1:9 50 sxieép" .. and the sani'
Ravi Ramamia inmate? of V' died. Hence
respondentsixix' 1 deceased Ravi Ramanna filed
claim on account of the death of
their sheeg.' 'V the evidence placed on zecozfl,
fgundi since the driver of the vehicle has
sheep which died in transit, the appellant
the-..iV1is1i1e1%Vi';ii'Ai:E1e vehicle which was in foxm, is liable to pay
~ -i«i..I'¢;;«a1_ipei1sai:id3i__io the claimants by the owner of the
Hence, this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both
perused the documents. None represents on
respondent No.3, who is the owner of the vehicle. V
5. It is argued by tho learned fog
of oouzse, the vehicle involved in tho accfic3:;1At ‘is *’
in that vehicle mg driver of the aajd who tloéii oficcp as A
well as the deceased Ravi 5″ Bfii.:’j4§1g§fa;ftunofoIyVAVvmct with
accident msuifing in death of the owner of
the sheep Ravi the appellant
has not the owner of the
vehcilc in respect goods carried in the
vehicle. any compensation. It is
also argued thaf is a goods vehicle and the
wafiin fence fimgiixo/1993 to 26/10/1999. In View of
the fact is auoomprehcnsive insurance policy the insumr has
not to pay any damages in respect of any
‘o,;– §¢o:1s caxiiied vehicle and therefore, fastening the liability on
M liable to be set: aside by allowing the appeal.
” 6_ “Io support of his contention, learned ootmse} for the
relied on a decision reported in case of’l’HE ommrmn
//E 7” 1,
(:3
msummem comma? LTD., -vs- rmtmmc an
momma am 2000 KAR 5030: wherein, this ffigis.
that “goods if any carried in a transport vehicle on
contact entered into between the ownef moffhe u
owner of the goods, the insurance ‘held’
to compensate the loss said to have of ” ‘ L»
1116 goods”. . . .,
7. On the other hand, xespondents
1 and 2 submifieg. a goods vehicle
any damage osvner of the vehicle is
expected fidamages. Therefore, the
claim of the Motor Vehicles Act is
maintainable. ‘It the live stocks are styled as goods
I.-Vie1;”1c~z:V,« case, the deceased has carried the sheeps in
‘ V’ __the ‘j_tVhe’Insuranee Company is expected to cover the
of of the vehicle. Therefore, it is submitted that the
by the ma!” Court does not reqmre’ any interference
prays for dismissal of the appeal.
x’
I
if
ii
8. I have carefully scrutinised the copy of Ex. P2 insnmnee
policy issued by the appellant in favour of the
who is the owner of the vehicle. Admittedly, the
husband of respondent respondent No.1 Vi
vehicle in question, which met withjean in 35
died. It is further admitted fact af
comprehensive insurance by to
cover the 3*” party risk for But the
policy does not *_- paid any extra
premium to cover the vehicle. So, as
per the owner of the vehicle
the appellant} is not liable to indemnify the
owner of the vehiele any liability arise out of damages
‘the tire vehicle. Therefore, any ageement
the owner or driver of the vehicle on one side
goods on the other to transport the goods
iron} one another, if any damage caused in nansit then
” 1 and 2 are liable to file a separate claim’ petition
of the damage caused to their live stock. But the trial
without properly appreciating the evidence placed on record
A Ti
Q
wrongly fastened the liability on the insurer of the vehicle: The
owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent No.3 alone is
ithe compensation.
9. Hence, the appeal is alieww e Tifie V’
award passed by the Court below _
Rs.68,800/- together with interet» fig, of
petition till the date of is Tkie fiability
fastened on the appeflanil Vtjou compensation
amount is hereby set _a3i_§le. is the owner of
the vehcle aione is the by the Court
below. by the appellant shall be refunded
‘ to it. Respoxidexits iiberty to execute the award
against L'(§.e ‘iespoixzieni .
Sd/-2
Iudg5
” ~ 1. trams’