I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 4'?" day of October 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLI:3 MR. JUSTiCE ARALI NA;r§§ARAg_}--:: f
M F A No.11537/2007 _ *
BETWEEN i "
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co,?L-td, .
No.1119/B, M c Road, Manc1y'a.$i,
Now represented by its it
Regional Manager, V g =
United India InsuraneefC_o;._Ltd, " _
Regional Office, Shankaranaray"an.ai"--
Building, No.25, M Gfioad, _ d '
Bangalore--56G.O()1. ..AppeI1ant
[By Sri A '-~''Ad.V.) '
AN13§,_
1. Smt.Sunandamrf1-a, '
_ W/o";Na1'asimh.aiah.
Now aged about 32 years.
Rl o';.Rayas'a1'idra Village,
_, _Tha--ng--ani Post,
as _Kan~ai{ap_ura Tq.,
' Badilgaidre Dist.
2. Mgariddgowda,
" .-Sfi'o.Chikka Diggegowda,
Major, 1'/o.Rayasandra,
' Kasaba (II), Kanakapura
Tq., Bangalore Dist. ..Respondents
{By Sri R Nataraj, Adv.)
q:’\.–»-~”1….»»»*””
#2.’-M”-”
Is.)
This MFA is filed U/s 173(1) of M V Act, praying to
set aside the judgment and award dated 21.22007
passed by the Court of Session Judge, Fas.ti»-Track
Court–II, Mandya in we No.5’76/2005. ”
This MFA coming on for hearing
court delivered the following:
JUI)G1V\}’£AE3_1_\jff’_fl~:lV l
T his appeal is by thel.IVns1’1rer”of_tractor’*:a11Vd. trailer?’
bearing Regn. No.K£t–05 Were
involved in the accident’AoCC1iirred’leVvohV:.8.5.2001 at 9.00
pm. hear Q11a’thra taluk. The
appellantgi in this appeal
the and Award dated
21.2.2097 No.576/2005 on the file of
theg1earnedr..v”Presidin§ Officer, Fast Track Court–II,
(h~e_reinaiter referred to as “Claims Tribunal’ for
as it relates to its liability to pay
compen’sa,tion to respondent No.1 — claimant awarded
by__ the” “Claims Tribunal towards the death of her son,
“.Wh’o died as a result of injuries sustained in the said
it ” ” accident.
,__..<:-~m.«~
2. I have heard the argument of the learned
Advocates for both the sides. Perused the impugned
Judgment and Award and the entire materiVa.1_’4’fo’t1ndV'”in
the original records obtained from the K V’
3. Sri A N Krishnaswamy,
appellant — Insura.nce Co; _stronglvV-contendss’ that’.”the’ap
deceased boy was traVellin’g~».:._Vi11 tragctlor and
trailer, which is a therefore the
appellant ~« riolt to pay any
amount of No.1 — claimant,
the and hence the impugned
Judgmelntéhpandll to be modified to this
He tu1*th__eijeontends that even if it is held that
‘ the. .__boy was travelling in the said tractor and
‘trailer Aalojngwith some quantities of rice, ragi etc., it
cannot be held that the said rice, ragi etc. fall within the
A ‘dd’ definition of goods as defined under Section 2[13) of M V
l§.Act, 1988 so as to attract the provisions of Section
(.»m_«:***-~w~…V–«
l47′(l)(b)(i} of the said Act to fasten liability on the
Insurance Co. to pay the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimant.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for they-1$?’:’:’respondent–«..
, claimant strongly contends that fdecehasedl
travelling in the said trac’to’r._andt-trailer
goods viz: rice, ragi and ot_h:er:_provisions:,. which were
necessary for his farnilly.Aandittheieforey it could not be
said that the;-r v’decea’sedfA unauthorised
passenger..ir1. _said’:t_ractor and trailer and hence, the
Clairng ‘ justified in fastening the
liability the — insurance C0. to pay the
V. y_ compensation ‘aw,a_1fded in favour of the claimant.
V _ that the motor Vehicle accident occurred
at 9.00 p.m. involving the said tractor and
trailer” and that the deceased boy, who was travelling in
vehicle, fell down and sustained fatal injuries
and consequently died are not in dispute. PW1
‘x,« A.
{:–«.5. “tw-
claimant, who is the mother of the deceased hasstated
in her evidence that on the said date and
deceased was returning to his viliage from-,,’KanaKapura
after buying rice, ragi and oit’her.,proVisions for]. the
family and therefore he was traxf/e1_1i:i-3_gA’ said
and trailer alongwith the»
evidence of PW1 do,e”s~.__not ‘.weyennfdis’e.1_ose” the quantity of
rice, ragi and other carried by
the Besides this,
there is show that any quantity
of foodgrains found in the said
vehicle; to the accident, though
has stated” evidence that he saw the accident that
.ocicu1’E19(::tiVV”oIi thevsafid date, time and place as a result of
1 deceased boy, viz: Appaji, who was travelling
in’««..the_”t1’actor and trailer, fell down and sustained fatal
..injuries and consequently died in the hospital as a
‘ ‘~_”res{111; of the said injuries, he has not stated further that
(“N
4_,,.W._% x./–»~«~w._.4
x
6
the deceased was travelling with any goods in the said
tractor and trailer at the relevant time of accident;
6. This Court has held in the case of _
Insurance Co. Ltd. -vs- Smt.Ii(M1lithabai’v– V.
2007(3) Kar.LJ 501 that one tWyoe1é.:ages_1of
and other house hold articles cannot to
‘goods’ as defined under of..Sect_ionlf?2 of M V
Act and therefore the-firevaeien efelseyetsen 147[1)[b)(i) of
the said Act CgC_1:l’l1T_.1()'[ be liability on the
lnsurancefio. to the claimant
towards ‘-the ‘deceased, even if it is held that the
deceasedtahloy tr.avel1ing in the said tractor and
tija’i1er__fat _the rele_vant time of accident alongwith some
‘ rice, ragi and etc. said to have been
him at Kanakapura for his family.
7’. ~ _”l’herefore, I am of the considered opinion that the
Tribunal cornrnitted error in holding that the
“appellant — Insurance Co. is liable to pay to claimant
“\’~(“°-.
<,
g_'—.~w…_,; –.'___#—-s
therein (131 respondent herein}, the amount of
compensation awarded in her favour towards theutieath
of her son.
For the reasons aforesaid. the present, appeal
allowed. The impugned Judgment gas
it relates to fastening on f-ihe.._vappell_a’ntV —-={}iisuranc:e
liability to pay to the claim_an:t.:~
with interest at 6%’ in favour of the
claimant is hereby other portion
of the It is made
clear that the olaiz;r1antV’linfjthe._ls’aid”-case shall be entitled
to recover the said>an1oun.t “compensation in terms of
thevi;’r3.pug3?_.»eld award fromths §Vner of the said tractor
and trailer.”
sag
Jadg-3