IN 'THE HIGH cozmrr 012 KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED Tms THE 13"?" DAY 0? NOVEMBER.
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JLFSTICE HU:§4U:
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST ::s.z>If1:;$L%13z().1s<;¢fzi}::«' £095 % %
BET
Natienal Insurance Co:z2pV::ii*;§;;"ijV«i:i«;it@j»=:A\ .
Mangaicre D0, " " "
Through its Regiogai V()ffi¢._:é; " " * . "
NOJ44, S1iI)h§}§3e'31_§?; "
M.G-Ro;{d, Ba'2'1gaI0re<V'aS60Ofl.1'.
Rep. by its Assistaxitifidiiaifiistfafive Officeg;
sm:.D.Kanh_:ka, A % ...APPELLANT
V (By S;§§B.C.S€;6t§§afa1fial§a0; Adv-)
1: ~ K1133},
Sip Chagzdappa Kala},
Agézd about 26 years,
AA Rasidiv3:c__c=;t of Dharkasiu House,
~ Mepdabidri, BK.
%% ._._ " 2.A Sfi:V.Nithyananda Maziya,
V330 V.Laxmana Mallya,
Managing Director,
Moodabidri Transpext C0,, +3;
Nithyananda Complex, Moodabidré,
Mangalore. (Owner ef the Bass")
1"-J
tn)
3. Mr.Rajg0pal.R., Major,
No.265,, I Main, Manjunathnagar,
'C' Read, Bazzgalore-10-
4. The: Divisionai Manager,
United India Insurance Cu. Ltd; . .4
II Floor, 113' Cross, Malieshtsgaram, 3 A
Bangalore--560003. A
(By Sri.S.Narayana Murfifg fo¥'"R--~fi )'=
$H.is=I¢ '
This M.F.A. is filed.Lufi€i.3r."'S£?£:ti0n 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and aviardidatad'1.I;3.1.Li.05 passed in MVC
N€).IO;'03 on i}3¢ fiI€:"£:fV"ti<:§: }_'rl..:'L»Civi'i lfzzviige (Sr.Dn.),, Member
MACT-IV," ',R§.zinga¥30re;,L "aw-21-rding compensation of
Rs.I,00?.5't')Gf]-_ in...£;1I"tQg¢"thcr igxierest 6% pa. fram the
date of f;§ti1iip}§2_ tiII"tha_ 6~.:.it@A_c3f'deppsit of entire ameunt.
"{"hisV on far hearing this day, the Cezsrt
deiiveredé the f0il_ow_i::g; +'
. . . . .
A éppeal is by the Insurance Cempany Eyeing
aggfiégcd by the judgrzzent and award passed by the MAC'?-IV
V' Civil Judge (Sr,Dn.), Mangahare, in fastsning the }iability
on the appellant to pay the compensatian in MVC NQIOEO3 by
orcim" dated 15.11.05? /,
2. The claimant {Had the claim pctitécen 15:22" the injuries
siiifcreé by him in the accident that has €sccurred.p7r:, 3'3:'§;{}-«IV
around 5.30 am. while traveihng in the K *
No.KA()1-B»-7777 wheraén he
According to him, on that day ;§.rhileA'a':}:€}"--bu3
near Bhrama Devara Katie in ézie :9
the rash and negligent ofthe if dashed
against the NQ.KAQ1
3643 and c:_i::c§".»v%;;) szigtaincd grievous
injur§e:§. He: tr§5h11t:nt_'in a private hespifai at Haveri
and theféaffér Mangalore. He said it: have
¥aVkh3..V_ffi'waz;'§is meéicai cxpensas and that he stiii
r:e qu_iVres:A §..3~..'3i "~§akhs tawards fiiiure medical expensas. The
nzfiiter §§a:§3a_:Qi}T?:éStcd by the Insurer and the: ()'Wl."l6fS (sf both the
vehiiuziazst 'ayéfe placed experts. The Txébunai an hearing both
" 'i;id¢§~«_.having raiseé four issues fer consideration held thai the
K aécident wag due in the negligence on izhe part if the driver of
the bits in questinn, haviiig mken inter censideratian the various
documents produced bygzc Claimant and haviag noted the
W
injuries Suffered? has awarded 3 tom} compensation of
Rs.I,€3¥Z},50{},f--, out of which, tewards pain
Rs.30€,_O(3O,-5--~ is awarded and Rs.70,5G0.f1~ is 'séQx§?ba'r£%.gVb
medécai expenses and aCCDI'€§flg]y,¥_f&S:t£:fi¢.§Cifhfié 1i§iéappeaI is filed. There
is no crass 3339631 c3fi§t{1aat seeking for
enhancem¢__mt"L*f
3: Hf.-ard'th~eV fer the appellant. Akhofigh
:2Qt§;:'e'V is se:rve}:i'~n;;}ne rieprcscntsd for the respondents to contest
. jfiasvmatter. — . A . __
..<f;A;Ai§:§':0rding to the leamcé Caunsel far the appeiiant the
V' " nlfisiizjed bus had been cmrercd with the risk of passengers and
fave workmefi namely the Driver and the Cenductnr and as per
Secticon £47 cf the Meta: Vehicles Act the risk of the cleaner is
neither centred under the policy 110:' contampiated under the
32/
statutory provisions and ignering this aspect the apjmliazzt was
made to pay the campensafion.
5. On perusal ef Annexure
and the ceriifieate of Iz:su:’a::ee pfL”){i’L!C6d .see§f:’.t§123j{1f’e,
premium is collected by the 1;ndei””‘:3’1:V:e”i;ea£’Vif;Iiabiléty to
pizblie risk and also in is coilected as a
legal liability .123 d!’iW:i’,= . §::nei*iei=._ add {‘x.ther employees in
connectiezfg egfereiign,.._«–r1iaifiteh’é{ece and unit-ading of
the ‘ve}¥ié§_e¥e..€i§Vh®.:’_ad2n§{fe{i}y’ the Inserer has eeiiected
additiengl ‘pgeziiiifiéetop kis.”-rj}e’;*”if}2e fiabélity {if about 6 empieyees
in :cu11neetii3z*:._*;\?ith the operation and maintenance of the
” «xseiiiele,?i}1ei2e.._:2ecessariiy the cieazzer is a person eeméng within
zfiid there is no gainfiy in the centention of the
ieeérnedv 0f the appcliant. As per the addiiiena} premium
” .. ei)23_;eeted there is a vaiid iesurance coverage which aiso covers
§he”}iabi}ity as to the injuries sustained by the cleaner, whe shali
a¥se be treated as an employee in ceneeetéon with maintenance
ljzzv
of thz mcztor vehicie. Under the circumstances, no
merit in the contezition ofthe appellant’
6. Accordingly, appeal is
award passed by the amouht: ifi.: iiep():sit be
transferred to the Trébgmfigl fbr..d’i’3’§¥;i’séi¥;§1)t. ‘A ‘
gd/-Q.
.4.-«Q
Iudqe