:2. §x10swAL MAJOR (By Sri N SHANKAR RANG!§REJ§, ADV. FOR R1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORET Dated: This the 213* day uf February " BEFORE V THE HON"BLI3 MR.JUS'I'ICE _y,q5GA;~;NA'm;§..N"'- M.F.A.N0.43:7/2065 BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE g:Qj'LT:a_ NEAR CANARA ;3'AN'_K j ' .« MARATHALLI BANGALORE ; BY ITS MANAGER V i _ ' ...'AP'P3.s:LmNT (By Sri 0 m;$[v_.): 7- AND : 1 ;J0GEsH'.@..y0.aE$HKHAPARQE s-/_ 0' Mcrr1LA;~..,_ 31 YEARS SIR.NAGARw.WARI.I_>; --so 'GAT. CHOWK GONIJIA-44}-_6(5.1. DIST GONDIA . - MAHARASHTRA STATE » $;apM;J*'N11vENKATA REDDY, MAJQR 'NCLQS, RAE) STOP NEW PET KR'iS'HNAGIRI TA~MI_I.g.:NADU S'I'A"I'E N€).630, :1 MAIN ROAD 2 BASAVANAGAFZ' V' BANGALORE RESPONDENTS
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) 01? MV ACT AGAXNSE’
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 10.12.2004 W?A?Ss£_:;;:$’-.,
IN MVC NO. 4208/2002 ON THE mm
MACT, IV ADDL. JUDGE, BANGALORE .6), ‘
AWARDING COMPENSATION 0E”fés’.”‘2,1’45,35OT1_’¥«._§v:T:H
INTEREST @ 6% pa.
THIS APPEAL COMINVG’v–.§}’N» F()}€’–. ;~iLt.AfR,1§4i<§"'§*zaJ':s
my, THE COURT DEL;vER$}:)_.T§3vE F'(;}LL{)WIN_Cr;,'§
This appeal is Co.
Limited, the tribunal by
which {he is’ respondent—
claimé3;1t._ __ -allowed by awarding
1233.2, 14;346; 13”aS”’fi~}o11ii3f’§ii;3ation.
” f;’11eVi11 brief are that the respondent
111:}, “travelled as a pinion rider in Hero
}?I{2:fida_vBil:
r’
3
inguries and he flied the claim petition before the
txibunal u/3 166 of the M.V.Act and later en,;the
claim petition was amended to one 11’/,S 168jA_~ V.
Act anci thereafter the tribune} after ‘ M
materiai placed, awarded
in the beghnillg of the jL1eigI11e41%1tA:’aI1d
respondents before it liable
put the liability at Ihxvand 2
who were the ovmers ef and as
a consequeheeefeehfiheizsaxige; eeepondent before
it i.e. thezi. fihzeeted to deposit
50% and was given
liberty 500/?) from the tertfeasors
aftegj %l1e}* compensation amount.
‘Ehe main contenfion urged by the learned
.::o*::;1se1 ‘Q;””Mahesh fer the insurance company is
mere the petition was filed initially L1/s 1&6 of
tihe. Aet, later en, it was amended by seeking
hieeizfiersien into (me 2.1/s 163~A of the Act and
Weeeerding ‘go the learned counsel, the change was
2*»
\ P
compensation, has taken the income of the
at Re.4,7D0/~ per month which means i11c0IIéV1.t3..e V.
claimant was more than RS.40,0()0/~ ”
For 2113 the said reasons, learned eo»1:j:”1:z,e1_T J
the judgment of the Trih1u1aj_ is to ‘V
and the appellant be absoavee his liahi}§t§%’;
6. On the counsel for
the “the Tribunal
was ju5ti1’ieti §e1 5 163-A of the
Act any defect: in the
pieaclri:g,”i11e give undue izmportance
to the but; err me other hand, the court will
V’ _ hefie to.AeoI1sider’i;1*1e’:1}ateriai placed on record and in
regee.:’t:1’to counsel referred to the decision
of Bench of this court reported in 2006
As regards the liability of the irleurance
oeropany to pay compensation even in respect of a
% fiiliion rider is concerned, lwmed counsel referred to
the decisions reported in:
%/
J
«q
1. 2007 ACJ 22614
2. AIR 1988 30.1433
3. 2008 AG} 785 (Delhi)
4. 2000 ACJ 1039 [Karj
5. 2001 ACJ 1445
7. Yet, another sulqmiésigii
learned counsel for the that
when a petition is _ $1; the Act, me
other provisions Vof section
14? of th_€f_. and
tiierefgyfg 2:191? that the ciaimant
was «by virtue of the provisions
contaiI1£:du/_s Jthe Act, which provision
ov;e:§;I*i{ie:s a1i’~.o:the1f, provisions 9f the Act, the’:
»A therefore will be liable to pay
co.n:§3cnsE1t.i03:i’evc11 in respect of a piliion rider.
A1′ in the light of the contentions put farwani
rabove and the rulings cited, the point for
….§m:1side:1?ati01:: is, Whether the judfient of the
tribunal can be sustainable in law, particuiarly in the
…§>
, .
face ef the gounds urged by the learned counsel for
the appellant-inszxrance company.
9. The facts which are not in dispute”a:’e A’ %
the claim petition was filed initially l ”
166 of the Act and later it was’ = a, A’
163-«A of the Act. But ho’-airevier, eelunxfi
claim petition the ineome been
maintamcd at elonth plus
commission. in fixe tribunal,
the stated
has he stated that
despile his elicwn as Rs.5,000/– per
inentla, it Within Rs.4i),U{)0/- per
‘_ es ni:i)’~VeQ3″;:;e 1.1/s 163-A of the Act. In other
‘:#f0rds;._V’the:te”is no definite evidence iildicafing that
claimant is less than jRs.40,0()()/-
pert At the same time, the evidence of the
A is that his inceme is Rs.4,’7{){)/- per month
zémd in this regard he has produced the salary
certificate as per Ex.Pi3. The tribunal also has taken
3*
Vi,”