Hanumantha vs The Divisional Manager New India … on 3 September, 2009

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009

BEFORE

THE HON'BL}3 IVER. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA  I  " 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 10915/zoimyiijy  T'

BETWEEN:

HANUMANTHA
S/OBALAPPA,  
AGE. 37 YEARS,  _
OCC: COOLIE (CART RENTAL BASI--S_]* 
R/O. BASAPATTANA, '  --   "
TQ. GANGAVATHI, __  .
DIST: KOPPAL.   I

 '-- %      APPELLANT
(BY SR1. CHANDRASI-IE1<AR.:P; PATIL, ADV.)

5.132;

 THE DI\[ISIO.NAL MANAGER,

 NEW IPJD'I;A ASSURANCE
coML'+AN'Y LI.M'ITED,
 EDIG-A HQSTAL COMPLEX,
. 0PP."'EU:~.; STAND,
' BEJLLARY 

H K   ._DIST__; BELLARY.

 SYVEESADATHPASHA
'5J  SfiO.NAZEER,
 "AGE. MAJOR, J2



('Q

OCC. OWNER OF LORRY
BEARING NO. KA O2/B6688,
R/O. EDIQ MOHALLA,

TUMKUR.
_.. PESPONDEMS

(BY SR1. H.T. JAGADEESH FOR SR1. A.M. VENKATESI-I PORj'AE§j1.3:'~'-_A

TI-{IS APPEAL IS PILED U/S 173(1) OF MV AcT"AOA1';\§sT'_"'-A '
THE JUDGMENT 86 AWARD DT: O7/06/2006 PAssEO._'1:~N 'Mj.v.C._ " 
NO. 9 /2005 ON THE FILE OF THE c1v1L:'J'UO'OE {s.O.;f&I_MACT, 
GANGAVATHI, DISMISSING THE CLAIMAAP .. PEE1T1.Or~J  ;E..OE:;

COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON EOR'A1:§M1ss1O"N_V_1"Hi:3 [5'A{?,"THE
COURT DELIVERED THE EOLLOw1NO_:___    

The appetlatitELher'eih'ds theTC'iaimant in M.V.C. NO. 9 /2005.
Two claim petitionsddarisping Odt  the same accident in M.V.C. No.
ltd),/_  wefedddddisposed of by the common judgment

dtd.  dd  instant appeal the question relates to the

T' v.::HOrder passed in  No. 9/2005. In the said claim petition, the

"'ehinpeasatiohv.eiaimed is in respect of the damage caused to the

 and for the death of the buflocks. The Tribunal has

J»

*8



rejected the ciaim on the ground that the Insurance 

would not be liable to pay the said amount.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties   

appeal papers. The issue relating to the  J 

9/ 2005 has been answered while dec_idinglW.isis7ue Nopi..13,"lIi  it

regard the Tribunal has stated that therclaiman'ts_ iliahve tailed to
convince that the insurance policy coklersrthedamages."J At the

outset, what has to be stated is first  Tribunai has

the owner of the vehiclejvhiicih C«a_us.ed-- the accident would be liable
at the first instance 'Company no doubt is liable to
reimburse oniy  the policy covers the same. In this regard it is

aiéétfi"b6lV.'fi5tiE¢'éC'ifiat Sec".W147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act

 Eimits the iliabiliityaof thelnsurance Company to the maximum of

iV.§'sV.'6_0OO/  if this is kept in View and the matter is

"cor1Vs'ideredT by" -the Tribunal even if a higher amount is to be

  theliability of the Insurance Company would be limited to

 the-said__ilextent stated above. Therefore without assessing the

J

.-
.

hnm*

damage the Tribunal could not have come to such a conclusi_4d>L1,;rVd1La1._VV

3. In terms of theabove, jvdisposed of. No

order as to costs.