IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
C1RCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED: THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY"
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE HUL_UVA._Df'(§:;'f§A.1"I/:[ES¥i:
M.F.A. NO.12398 (BF 53_{\\;{57[It/['\'/j)?
BETWEEN TV " 2
1. M/S DROGARIA COLVALKAR'-. -
DRUG HOUSEMAPTJSA *
BARDEZ GOA RERBY SLIOE3 . " .
PRORSURESH R.COL'_J'ALfl-'AR,~' _ . .. APPELLANT
1. S.ANGAI>PA'.j-~.__%. ~
S /0 BASALINGAVv;A'SAG.A'Ia
ALIAS HAI2:JAN,AQED 60 YEARS.
AGRICULTUIIEE/S0.PIEAPUR,
M;;;DDEBIIIAL;E1JA,PUE: DISTRICT.
' THE DNISIONAL MANAGER
.-TI--i«E_NATI0jNAL--.INSURANCE co LTD,
P..IAM'A-D Ev GALLI.
"BELAGAM".j-- RESPONDENTS
(B3; SEIVAYOGI MATH ASSTS. FOR R1:
Sri.I§.X(fb§ADAGOUDA FOR R2)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
A’ 1..V’;II..Jf3GI\/IENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.12.2006 PASSED IN MVC
‘No.29/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT, MUDDEBIHAL
W
SEEKING A DIRECTION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PAY THE
COMLPENSATION TO THE 15’? RESPONDENT.
This MFA coming on for hearing,
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMEIQ «
This appeal filed by the
the order passed by the
No.29/2005 dated 30.12.2005; saddlirig liabiiitty on the
owner/appelianpt to awarded.
2. The the father of the
deceased compensation on
account son in the motor vehicle
accident.’ the claimant that the deceased
wngie goizig 1ndVa’te:npo bearing No.dA-01/Z-4803 from
in the course of employment wherein
accident occurred due to the negligence on
the part«:’of the driver of the tempo which dashed against
it-..3;n0ther truck bearing No.CDT–7646 on NH17. Due to
it impact, the deceased Hanamant succumbed to the
Lil”
injuries and therefore, claim petition was filed the
father of the deceased claiming compensation
contending that the deceased was
workman with the owner of the..vehicIe.’_in’V§u.–estionj’garl.duit
due to the negligence of the driver the
deceased died and accordingly, lhfiied’ ‘”u:nder”l
Section 166 of Motor :t.”t_:’g7el;icles ‘flctwjclaiming
compensation of Rs.
3. was the
owner ariéd lwas the insurance
compianjf. ” ‘ grevsjjondent/owner remained
ex~part’e.I ‘-The contested by the insurance
company. “U_lti1nately,é”whi1e awarding compensation of
d V. 545800/– wit’hM560/o per annum the tribunal saddled
ff-the owner stating that the insurance
con.1pany cannot be fastened with the liability since
V. there “is no insurance coverage for the third parties.
“”.4VXvgg1’–«ieved by the same, the owner is _ in appeal
it challenging the award on various grounds.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 15$
respondent/owner submitted that as per the evidence
let in and available on record, the father of H
has specifically stated that the deceased.wasf.vorking ~ V.
the company of the owner and=.’:he;-ixxrasA’travellirigi-ei._as;:Va
worker in the vehicle, insurance plrerniumfils}l3eing_§paic1_:>
and without looking into -..aspect.l_Eitribunal
treating the in the tempo
as a third” is no coverage for the
third the owner of the
vehicleldwphich isViéei.thlo’n.t’:’application of mind and illegal.
Per coritifa, learned counsel appearing for the
. lA””insurance”companjfléwould submit that another appeal
in MFA No.5155/2007 dated
14;’8.2Q’0’8 to be dismissed, as such, the question
Jofgifastening liability on the insurance company does not
‘ariseiiand accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal
l “as the said judgment acts as a res–judicata.
32¢’
I
in the Vehicle and despite there is no rebuttal evidence
to prove that he was not working with the owner_li:he
vehicle and also Without application of rnirid *
policy does not cover third party.:ar1d.4saddle’d”iliahi1ity on it it
the owner. In so far as the deceased is conceri1ed;._.he.
was not a third party or he a ‘person: ‘”t_oVV”‘o:e”‘treated”‘
as a person travelling in for vvhich-‘premium
is not paid. Then is on the
owner of the in the case on
hand, oral evidence to the
effect,’that’ wpasuhvvorkman working in the
appellaiat it is stated that he was
travelling said «vehicle, when premium is being
aid t’o”wa”rd_s coverage of the Workman, necessarily,
I has’ to.’-he saddled on the insurance company.
9;.’ ‘Hence, in modification of the order passed by
the tribiinal while fastening liability on the owner, it is
“ordered that the insurer — respondent No.2 shall make
payment of compensation amount to the ciaimantyvhile
absolving liability on the owner. V 9
Accordingly, appeal is aliowed in part,.–, ‘C ”
The amount in deposit it-0″” be
owner/ appellant. V V — — V’ V’ M
The insurance compéirxifshali. V
within three months,
‘N Sd/I
e JUDGEi