I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13'? DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 201U--_
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. B()i?_A:"i'€:1.§I19£;_E."~ OE ' O'
1VI.F.A. No.8974/2o!JS"('n/iv) T; .
BETWEEN:
THE) BRANCH MANAGER, I
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CQLTD
BUS STAND ROAD, GOKAK,
REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, NO 2--B, UNITY I3UITLDING;
ANNEXE,V'E'£\/IOIVOSSTCEN M
BANGALQE 560 A A APPELLANT
(BY SR1. RAD ASSOCIATES AND
SRLR. RAJAGOPALAN, 'ADV'S.)
AND I = I
S.IVI:T.Af1\/IMAJ/§N'W.,1O DASTAGIRSAI3 TAPAKIRE,
" AGED' _ABODT 55 YEARS,
' rOTCC:"COC)~LI'E-.,
._SII3IDI'KUR¥;'-ET,
GOKAK. *1'-AI;UIERSONS'.«--I_V * I -
'F1'-.§1I'VSd'~APPI§QALgCOI\/IING ON FOR HEARING THIS
TI~I'E:.CO'uRT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The _’va*p:DieI1ant–InSuranCe Company has Calied in
zt’E<1C judgment and award dated 15.7.2005 passed
4'_i1'_I£1/WC-RA1\EG.352/2000.
5? '32 .
A
4
,3
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.
The respondents though served are unrepresented.
3. The only question for consideration in this
appeal is as to Whether the liability to pay and rgecovger
could have been directed against the appel1an_t§Co19tipaiq;g:ig
after having come to the conclusion that_-ti’1e..iinsuranc::ju
company is not liable to indemnify the:’ir1*surie’d ii
present case since the claiman’t.._Vwas*aipersoriifiwhwog was , *
beyond the seating capacity of thewehicle hiriciuestiion. in
this regard, the Tribunalhas of the fact that
the seating capacity»pifrthegifehicle was 12+ 1. In respect of
the 14 c1aiIr_1srVarising»–o:u.t4of the same accident, the
insurarice ‘compaiiyg has satisfied 12 claims in View of the
isgeatinggcapacityvof the vehicle. Therefore, in that context,
in respect claims the Tribunal was of the View
g that capacity is 12+1, the compensation has to
be the insurance company in respect of the other
1
«i:
I’:
claimants. The said aspect in any event is not for
consideration in this appeal.
4. By the common judgment in i
the Tribunal, in any event, has c=;ome_it’o.v thei’co.nclu:sioVni’7
that in respect of the present claim thye–‘?l..in’suranc’e
company would not be liable.
the compensation and interim
compensation is alreadyy..paid, has directed
the and recover the
amount. th§eiiiTribunal has taken
note of the of National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Baljit vKa1;f,ipirei15.;irted in 2004 ACJ 423, the
4.t.VH0n’b,1.eg ‘Supreme has subsequently clarified that
i”V_V\fl’1€LIi”1~»_IV’.’l1<3vA'i1'1'SVl§3i7EtI1C€ company is not liable to pay the
comp.en'satio"n–. they cannot be directed to pay and recover
p the Ei1"£lC]J.l11;..il'I€1'3.C€ to the said extent the judgment of the
directing the appellant herein to pay
'V.___"coni;per1sation as determined in MVC 352/05 and
E'
thereafun"to recover the saIne,is set asfiie. 1t\VOLHd be
open fin'thetflaHnantt0 nxmverthe mnnpensafiQneflbn1
theJfi'and.Qmirespondentslxfibrethe'Trfin1naL$y 'eTe'
5. hi ternas of the above? fhe,eappeei<e:efide7
cfisposed of The annn1ntinVdeposfi#ehaH be refijfidefi 25"»?
flmzappeflant
Sub*