Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager National … vs Manjavva on 5 March, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil


DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY or MARCH 2o"1'o --v-..f:   _



Miscellaneous First Appeal  $3.68 of  A'  


Divisional Manager  . 
National Insurance Company 'Ltd. 
First Floor, Sujata Complex i
PB. Road, I-Iubli

Now represented by its   _   
Regional Manager  B     it   

National Insuranc»e'~.CoiLLtd. "       ' '

Shubharam Con51ple;':',v»2nd"P'l.oo'r.l.'j  *

I44, M.G.Road   32;,  " _ V' B' 

Bangalore --- .560 058 '21:   " _ .. Appellant

(By Sri Vitthai VlS;--Teli;  R.A.Chougule, Advocate)

   I A. ...... ..
?_Now.aged _abou't"-:9 years
B  0 Sri 'Nagar_E'e.ti

 " 2. I ndiidliar Veeralgiiadrayya

" Mathacl. 
Aged Major,';{)cc: Driver of

l' "  1 4' Unit, Hubli
 ' Dist, Dharwad

CA' -l"_  'V1:-erabhadrayya

"Aged 5Maj or, Occ:Agril.



S /0 Rudrayya Mathad

C / o lndurmathad

HDMC Contractor

Udyamanagar, Bengeri Extn.  « " it ;_.
Hubli -- 23 .. '=Responr,£entsigV ' '2 0 

(By Sri F.S.DabaIi, Advocate for R-3, R~2Jse.r\_red)  H 0' 

This miscellaneous first appeal is:'filetl" u s :1~'_73'{  

against the Judgment and Award dated 0E..04,2005passed in MVC" *'
No.376/ 2000 on the file of the Civil--,Judge{Sr.I)n;}.. 8z;g_P'rl...JMFC;i

Add}. MACT, Ranebennur partly all'owi'ng the"c._lai~rrr-I petition and

This appeal coming on». fi'nal;j_hvearigng"this day, the Court
delivered the following: i i   .  *

The insure;--* ;éippeal__iiquesltioning; the liability directed
against th€  land" award dated 01.04.2005
passed in  the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)

85 Addl. MACT,"'Ranehennur; .eontending that the compensation

awarded  fixing the 'liability on the insurer cannot be sustainable

aiiei liable to t5e'_se't" aside.

2. The briefflacts of the case are:

Vl"'"f'.heg respondent No.1 was a minor as on the date of the

represented by natural guardian the father who had filed

‘jtia_i,i:_nf petition under se

n 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

counsel for the respondents. Respondent No.2 is sers{ed_r’a.nd

unrepresented. The only submission made by the learijiedl

for the appellant at the outset is that the liability policy T

covers only six persons and the insurance cornjpany yhasisavtisfiedy’

those claims. The claimant is the V715 claimant andiV.therefore} the

appellant is not liable to satisfy the the
Tribunal. Therefore, he award
passed by the Tribunal is perusal of the
impugned judgment I was justified in
awarding of the injuries
sustained “ls;Wirespondent.}’c1aiiria’ntV:interference is not called
for. I-Iowever, at the outset submitted
that as no liability on the insurance
coin.pany:_jt’o the”aw–ar’d in respect of the seventh passenger

of ‘the .itracftor{tra;ile:r’and the same is liable to be set aside. As a

‘ ” xxnatterloflfact, ‘Sil;§’:’Sl.3i€Cll.lC issues have been framed by the Tribunal

and issue .Nd…3 is answered in the negative after considering the

RWs1 and 2 and also with reference to the reliance

ibylthe appellant by s igning valid reasons in paragraphs

8 and 9 of the impugned judgment and award has rejected the said

contention and awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/-. ‘I_’a.1rV;ing..all

these factors into consideration,_ this appeal is disrnissxfidi’a’sV_’d–e§}oi:;iV” f_

of merits. Ordered accordingly. Compensation “~

transmitted to the Tribunai forthwith. ‘;{‘-riIo3.:na.1.’ “dir’ec’te_d=:tvo«

release the said amount in favour ofcithe lst res’ponde.n’t’.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.245 seconds.