IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNAYAKA AT BAP~£GAi.v.()f§E»
DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF AUGUST, 2569; "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.'QEk:§jG£3#ALA'I?-CW£§{§ .__ :'
BETWEEN:
National Insurance Co.,f:Ltr.L* (j .
Karwar Branch, 'g 1-. ,
Through its Regional Office;
No.1", Subharam vComq';$!éx,.. 'A
M.G.Road, Banaafafa »~ 3563 301"; A.
Rep. by its Asst, figzfrzainisttjatiye-..Offivcer.
Smt.D.Kaft§1ik;a";_,. "
(By sn.3§c.%% segtha%raé;za%j$Aav.,)
Kafwamma @ Beriyamma,
_ Age6vgbcétzt_3;8 years,
3. 'xiv/o.wcmv,asopa,
'R/a. Hanagf Eail,
Haiafihikatte Pm,
Siddagvura Taiuk,
A. Httara Kannada District.
'Krishna Murthy Ganapathy Havale,
Since deceased by his LR's;
3) Smt. Jayalakshmi,
Aged 53 years
W/o. iate Krishna Murthy Havaie.
Misceilanggug Eirst Agggg 1 5 o.s§ 2260; Ma!
. .APPE'L!.ANT
b) Sri. Srikanth
Aged 31 years,
S/o. late Krishna Murthy Havale
:2) Sri. Suresh
Aged 29 years,
S/o. Krishna Murthy Havaie-.__.
Cause title amended as per fie 'V
Dated 24.7.2903. %
% '%...REs%£>._uss3D&R.f.sEcnoN 173(1) or Mv
ACT, AGAIi'-£S'?f- " JUQGMENT =.A:ao AWARD DATED:
25.93.2905 t=?ASSE£?JIN_"?6VC" :49. 549/1995 094 THE FILE
or THE M£MBER,i"fV 'MACT, PUTTUR, D.I<., AWARDING
COMPEf-J_SATI£)f\E'VV€3E 'Rs.«¢2%,~550/~ WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF-6% F.A.'"vCiN'R.S';38.,150/- AND omscrvme THE
APPELLANTHEREEN Tc: 9290517 THE SAME.
{This aV;J;5e:§f' ha sxing been reserved, the Court
" ' «. . :1-e£i£!_e"i*eq;§.. _theA fofiowifigé
.1.!.!_Q_§..H_E._I!_I
-mas afiséeai is directed against the Judgment and
fiwayd am 25.3.2905 made in we 349/1995 by the
T._"¥b¥,a_6t'*r'*'Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Puttur, D.K.
D
2. For the purpose of convenience, the perticeefere
referred to, with reference to their rank _
petftion before the Motor Accident Claims Tfibeniefie "~11: h
3. ?etEtioner filed claim petition 6*?"
the Indian Motor Vehicles 1988;" for of
compensation, due to the on"ec_x;euni: of the
injuries sustained by herth the n;_§ote~:.'_'_eeh§c_Ee accident that
occurred on 26.3.1995 vw--n§!'e:VsheA'eraetreireziing in a motor
vehicEe:vt'be"ar*§e§;_Re§$Vi$tret§t3n eo;""s<A 25/M---921. The said
vehicIeV"beie_nged: respondent and was insured
with the ;énd,.%respQnd:.en’t~;”‘%V Notice of the cteim petition
..Vhevinig Aisseed,~—–t–hough both the respondents entered
the 2″‘ respondent/Insurance Company
fiieddhihts statement and contested the claim on
‘evarieuue fironnde. Based on the pieadings of the parties, 4
were raised. Petitioner deposed as PW.1 and one
‘ £AA>’&§.5e’9yraprakash Shetty was examinw as PW.2. Exs.P1 to
were marked. By consent, the insurance policy was
marked as Ex.R1. Appreciating the evidence on record
‘t
/,.
ciaim petition though the 1″ respondent had
6.11.1997.
9. However, the L.Rs of the said V
have been brought on record in
LA. Ne.1/2007, seeking condo.n_atIoh”of”deiay 3443
in fmng the appiication to bringi””ett::i’e L.Rs setting
aside abatement prayed: ‘fie and ordering the
%..Rs to be brought on mra ‘i..A.fio.3/2007,
by an ofdek this”Cou:t heid as fotiows;
“Ivi1~.a’n«y everidt,;_ejV~the..jiegeé representatives are at
iiberty-to-set-_op._ttse§f defence in so far as the
Qeppea! is”‘coh:cern:ed. As a matter of formaitty,
it tS(oeVie.’_requife”that they be brought on record
V ” “‘fof*..:fe;§re;se.nting the second respondent. It is
address the merits of the case
imiepeiidentiy”.
tt “A10. Since the L.Rs have been impteaded, the matter
mrequires re-«consideration. The tribunal may have to find
out whether the 1..Rs of the deceased sufiwed to any
/-
estate of the deceased and are answerable to
any, that may be passed on aPPri’.~ciatl.on ‘_e”vVi.denca_jon’..i it
record. The L.Rs of the deceased?owne’i*V vuiiii
provided with an opportunitly–_L”toV_file”ttie§r_statariiazitj of ” it
objections and contest. theVAi.cla’i’m”‘~~petition–…__. filmilariy
claimant shouid be aiioviedcto”pr€é$f}e the
11. Ex.R1_is an by making a
reference to d:aci_si’on’_§%epor’l:@’VvinV_2tili0 AC3, 1039 and
2000 satisfy the award on the
appeilaritiu placed reilance on the said
decisions without..iooi§ini:j””.into the factual background of
.–vi,i.,thev-Viagasea. baforellwit; “” which is clearly impermissible. A
precedent on its own facts. Each case
pfesei1tsv.itsi::}giaiin features. It is not everything said by a
“‘~.-4.._’__”-.Judge ir’lFl’_li3§6 giving judgment that constitutes a precedent.
‘ thing in a Judge’s decision binding a party is the
‘ pfincipie upon which the case is decided and for this
reason it is important to analyse a decision and isolate
from it the ratio decidendi. According to the weii settied
\
Q;
MW
x
10
the fact situation of the decision on which it has piejceethe’
reiiance.
13. If 3 private vehicle haspeeh used'”feir;v.ce§’rying,: “‘ 2
passengers for hire or reward aed tE:j1_’e..jboii«;y’~’cee:6VEIti–e:§’:’:j
have been violated, the insurer’€§nnetv.h:e ‘lie_b«E.e,H The
same has to be found eut frort1__’_h:t:he_ eyvidehce_thetvVvf?may be
pieced on record by t!’ie’–.z_r’:£’e_:’_tiAa§.{_V’ ;”.T!u1efveepeilant/Insurance
Company has notvexaminee.eny’—git_n’eesee1te.estabfish that
the po|§cy”coeg3i;t_io’h:°$’V:ajiietibeeehSlielhoted and hence it is not .
Bable. tribuhat’y?Vhile_:t’dec§ding the matter may have to
find out mth’etherVVthe’–._§refiKiVde in question was a private
* «..vehvi’§:ie ehd has heee——used for carrying passengers for hire
orVi’ewa’i*d_:’ehd:whether there is any violation of conditions
of.’ p’o’iicy..A ebpredation of evidence, whether the insurer
‘sis fiahle iedemnify the insured, has also to be found out.
VA ‘5.’IfAA.the~«_insurer cannot be head liable, whether the L.Rs of the
deceased owner had succeeded to any estate of the
deceased and to what extent they are answerable to the
claim, has aiso to be found out. E
./ ,
11
14. Since the materia! on record is insufficient to
answer the said points, which arise for consideratEpin.4:’_an_d
also the fact that the impugned award has
against owner of the vehicle whe hat} died_–<:m. 'v
deem it proper to set aside the
award and remand the mattergg thehibeneiv'"?aA:.':gitspeseI
afresh and in accerdance with
In the resuit, I pass~..the_«fbi{_ewi!}g":'-.._
"e§§gaoeR
_i.)_ xfhei' a;1t:ee'iv_;is"°ai!ewed. iudgment and award
L x passed"m"Mvc 349/1995 dated 25.3.2005 by
Accident Claims Tribunai, Puttur, n.v<., is
2 V set aside.
htatter is remanded back to the tribtmai. The
tribunal shah permit the L.Rs of the deceased
1″ respondent/owner ta fite the written
statement, if any. The L.Rs of the deceased,
owner of the vehicle shall file written
X
‘%>»
13
In the circumstances parties shall V.
respective costs.
Ksj/~