Ill mm Hie:-I mum on V
mu-an nus 1-an 25*=%%nxwor% L
"mm T _
m.£,£a.,ms.s2§ %
. Q
Ix
G %
66. .
R]oM.ANmR-ROAD '
HUBL1 = VV _
' 'A n ' APPELLANT
%%-«4NE\iHN13iA ASSURANCE C0
AA _ REPZTD-BY'THE _mvIs:oNAL- MANAGER'
~fi{%.-=s.;.r 2 gr. -...!-..-...I'!. % -%
SUl&ANGAl.A- COMPLEX. HUBLI
- . TEES mas ms 1 -I %
'1'!-I_E_ JUDGMENTA-ND AWARE) -DATED; 3.12.2004'3.PAS$ED
in mni:-m.56i-zmo on 'F'iL'"' 0i«"'- Tm.-2 -A1'?-'vDL.(2i'ir'IL
% RESPONDENT %
JUDGE (sR.D_N.’-) 85 _ADDL.’MAcI’, HUBL_I__, AWARDING _
M
\
I mu nnn ~qr:\’ ~_ ‘ . Fog.
COz’vnP:.-mSA’FIGN E.-‘F R’S.35,uuufi WETH EN’FEREv;u—-.AT.___€}zu
P.A. AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT’ HEREIN._4″‘l’CI.__
DE’r”():’§i”i” cDMPENsATiDNjA%jAMDUE?~– L:EE’E”Er’
T0 RECOVER THE SAME FROMTHE APPE1..LAET HEREIN. T
III 1um.c:ED_n_Eg;9e
nmvgmmmu
NEW INDEA AEEDEA . CE’. wi TD ‘HEEL: ‘ E
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL’ OFFICE . _ ‘ = A . %
#:T:–B, * D E _
MISSION ROAD, BANHG_«ALOR_E£27–“‘~.v ..
REP. BY ITS 4.AEs1s’r,.am”r MANAGER 1
CRSUBRAMANYA
– . cnoss oEJEcroR
(By Eu EE,E1’HjA1§AMA::1§A(5. ADV 3
G N SHE’P’l’Y . E
AGED AEDUTE6 YEARS
c)cc.Bus1EEss
._’FANTOQR ROAL1.-«HUBLI
* E RE-SPQNDENT
:”‘TH§S=E’iriFA.CRGB. FELEE’: ‘u’iO 41 RULE 22 OF CFC
” . E AGAINE1’ THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.12.2004-
‘=PAEEEE.= m wrvc: NO.56i2000 EN FILE OF
ADDLCIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 ADDL.MAcr, HUBLI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF’ RS.35,000]– wrm
” ‘*£NTERES’P AT 6% RA. AND DIRECTING THE creoss
* GBJECTOR HEREIN T0 DEPOSIT THE COMPENSATION
AMQUNT L-IBERTY TQ RECOVER THE SAME FRQM
THE APPELLANT HEREIN. IN M?
U \
G N SHETTY
Af.}E,étii YEARS; B-_ SIBLTSS
R[0.MAN’l’UR ROAD, HUBLIK
{“y Sn’ : MAHESH
1 NEW mum ASSURANCECQ I 2
SL1 ~s;A.E ‘€11Q3§.I;’Pl.;EX, l*1UB~.l,..;–
REPFD.BY’f!’HE_ ..[_)IV_IS§ONAL_ MANAGER
aw} i
2 I! …SUEHAS :51 0… _S.HIVPsPPA,
A NAEEYAE’EEwxE; 35 YRS
oer. :”BU.SiNESS””.. A
R,4A’I’ NGQjLVTVILlJ1GE
m:-HuBLI’,.Ezs’rR1cr: DHARWAD.
” RESPONDENTS
VA] «. ‘JIDE (JRBER [)TD.2(.\.07.2(.V.)-..
T (Byfiri : “B_C.SEE’PHARAMA RAD, ADV FOR R1 )
EAHIEVVMFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
“‘THE”{.iUI’)GMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.12.2004 PASSED
IN. MVC NO.58_I200{) ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVlL
_ _ JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 ADDL.MAC’I’, HUBLI, AWARDING
* A “£3-«DMPENS_AT!QN. QF 125.2-‘5,0£lC),l – WITH INTEREST AT 6%
RA. AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO
BEPOSFF THE C0}.*IPENS.’.T!QN AMOUNT ‘.1.’!’!’!-I !.-IBERTY
TO RECOVER THE SAME FROM THE APPELLANT HEREIN. ‘
THESE APPEALS as MF’A.CROB, COMING on FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY THE coum’ DELIVEEEE ‘THE
FOLLOWING: A .\ ml) A
VJ
Jgneunnr Mf:*dld
This appeal and cross at.”
common judgment and
the learned counsel for the heard
and are disposed of.ji1dgInent.
2. ‘I’he.ow1_1er vehicle. aggrieved
by the dated 3-12-2004 in
aid the 5Ada1. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) 85
..short ‘MAC’I”}, has pleferfed these
-. I11′-1-Cl’\_}e I- 11* I-15′: :1-:1-nun’-;ru11 I|’1’\ 1-\l:|Ir
“l’.fthe”‘compeiosution and Iecover the same from the owner is
izudthe light of the decision of the Apex Court in NEW
_ _ am; ASSURANCE 00.1.-rn. u. vnnwxn as one 1.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant advances the
I
following contentions:
‘ \
‘:00’! (3) scam 397
LA:
(=5 Tirt a 1″.-:a”ti ‘s -*–y-u–1 –
.. 1…. ‘V ” ” ;_
11 tn Lll.Il7J..|f§’-.”3§l.’l..l’Vv”.’l..l.”-4l._ U.
ofiianfling vehicle by forging on uthe
Vakalatnama and Statement ‘1v1:ef_t:J1*evs’iA’l1e ”
MACT;
{ii} That the «fen
liability on the insure} ‘ eoo_1pensafion.
Rao, learned
Insurance Company and Cross
ob3pctc.r céfieejngis the MACI’ having recorded a finding
of r§c: that” »– were travelling as
3;; ‘seen __rs”io tl1e goods carriage in question, the Insurance
is iiiegai. O0u1r.st:1 seeks uu
‘\
:”
i
3
1
E
E3
5
3-
5
E
I
3
I
3.-
-9
. .
.uuI. unuav am. …1:: dzzfinwlaon to pay and moo-vex
1.-
_ -_.___ __1
“”sup;io1’t: contention by plm ‘ g or: upon the decision
AA Oftilté Apex Court in Vedwaifs ease supra.
. ..a…..g “es… the ‘-ovum mu:-.9.-.;1 for the parl’-..’es,
the answers fo the oofi”fiii’i1s advrucfid by the lca.1″””1′.i€1′.’|
counsel for the appeilant need not detain the Cour’: for iong.
t» Me
U
The fimt contention is without merit ardtt
rejected. I say so because. the »Aal1egatidVh’ ~93}-vutfie .
appellant cannot be decided in an agdpem. imam
msummcm co. L1′!).”_’v~’as., 1..:§z2!Gz€i Add
OTHERS 9, the Ape}-t Court th.1.1s:–t_
” ‘Fraud avoitie 0- eoclesiastical or
tempozml’ ohaenjved Chjeftiidutstjoe Coke of England
afloat El1I’t’:§, “§.FT1″f1_.'” iiee age. it t}1e’set’defi p”‘”‘s”i °
… – d» by }.1l£*.yiI1.g rm.-_..
the eyes of law. Such a
‘+0-»Tb3r_:”t13e fitst court or by the highest court
— _to he “-.gatté.’«i=.i nullity by every court, whether
superiofor ‘iafe.’r_io17.-.’:’ V “V
……..- L. .. …. m..–…r. L- 1.. ..’|’1’E.’-‘I1 L. t.. aI’me.11a..t L.
4* – *’ I r’ *- ” rr
1- .u Inn;-u-n
“-the aiiegtation oflrauci, befole me MAUI’.
:=-,srn1’I’ri1 nfi 11
.. ………….. …….
7. The second contention is without merit. An
.. J.I…..J.. 4.1…. ….’l…’…………..d…. .’…..:-…….l
I. {.11 U l5’fl”uJ(1l
2 2000 (3) sec 531 U\
ooiiid be ‘ pod “3 ur. Stu o
Vehicies Act, IP83 does not en’ ‘ statuto or:
owner of the motor vehicle to get.his_ veh_joIe”
passenger travelling in a goods
would have no liability thereof. Tins is the by
the Apex Court in Vedwatfs supra’ view of the
matter, the MAC!’ weosinot dimcting the insurer to
pay the compensation 1ocove”r”the’~V–‘san1e from the owner
I’ -‘3 5 W; -p 1.,
of the o.%-.:*_.dmg~veh1efle.q lha. !:’-.._I-.d=.ug~…..- – ….-.. .., ……-
8.’ “respondent-Insmanoe Company in
M.F.!t.’1No.t276’8_!_ not preferred a cross appeal,
._ iieiiiole to satisfy the award of oompensation to the
who travelled as passengers in the
.. goods carriage. In the result. the appeal is
‘ dismissed while the cross objection is allowed. The
impugned judgment and awards in so far as they relate to a
direction to the Iespondent-Insurance Company (Cross
DC}
I’\’I,
u jecfcfi in pay’ and “ec6ve1”- the e_a-“pei1″fiti'”i’1=
respondent insurance company gct asi(ié;” = -. .1: b .
Q- ,£_a1y gtnmgcisr, the
appellants am to Company
ifit has satkarfiecl _thc_’ proceedings.