IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD.
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY or MARCH 2o"1'o --v-..f: _
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT;{CE "
Miscellaneous First Appeal $3.68 of A'
Between:
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)
And:
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
etc.
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’.
Pmg/
