IN"NHEffiG£[C0UFflTOFILKRNATAKAmT
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAII "
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY or FEBRUg§R$zg.T251:i'%T %
BEFORE"
THE HON'BLE MR. JUST»i(3__I§".¢*g_lz.S. I'§Q.PANNA "'vV "
M.F.A. No;"--3::'.oV:2-'13/fi(}£)_$' Ak
BETWEEN: V' x L
1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE Co-1;r::~
UNIT~2000_. ASIA"'BUIL.DIN»{3 . *
KAMANI 'Ii/IARG,=:_BQMBAY}40Q.Q38
BY ITS "MA1§fA_GEP_ .
u.APPELLANT
(By siei : R'AKV/VI ;'G}-ST4B'H1iHJ'I"H, ADV)
AND_ T,
T » T 1. 5':cz¢1A1~¢pRA BA1""' "
AGE: YEARS
'' A _ " 'W/Q LAXMAN RAO, BILAGIKAR
. " --..VTOCC.f_HO;USEHOLD WORK
' R/0 YELAVAGI, SAVANUR TALUK
DHARWAD DIST
W " ' ' 2. s 4_ JAYRAJ
'AGE; 36 YEARS
S/0 LAXMAN RAO, BILAGIKAR
R/O YELAVAGI, SAVANUR TALUK
DHARWAD DIST T
3 ANURADHA
AGE34YEARS
D / O LAXMAN RAO, BILAGIKAR
R/O YELAVAGI, SAVANUR TALUK
DHARWAD DIST
4. ARUNDHATI
AGE 32 YEARS '.
D /O LAXMAN RAO, EILAGIKAR, I
R/O YELAVAGI, SAVANIJR TALUK '
DHARWAD DIST
5. VIVEKANAND
AGE 30 YEARS _ ; I
S /O LAXMAN RAO,r. BIL" _
R /O YELAVAGI, sAVANU.R.T*A LL.IK'
DHARWAD 'I
6. EACHITER VS'INGHfjjDHI«I.,._=£.IC}§N"
OCC:'T.RfANS.3%'ORTBUSINESS
R/ O KAILASH~RI'cE"*-MILL COMPOUND
NH NO 8,VVD1i_H>?_AJA'
GUJ--RAIT, ' I A.
RESPONDENTS
[ ('G 'AC.'GI .'SHEELVANTH,ADV FOR R1 TO R5 I
' MEATPILED U /8 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:26.11.04 PASSED IN
MVC N.Q".1384 /95 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
_'I'..(SR~..DN) AND ADDL. MACT, I-IAVERI, AWARDING
_ I --.COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,323,000/-- WITH INTEREST
AT 6% p.a. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
I .._REALISATION AND DIREOTING THE APPELLANT
HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME.
J2
n
La.)
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOVVIN.Cfti._._l'~~.vv
JUDGMENT
The appellant insurances: caV{ling::Ve_in
question the Judgement.»an__d avyarld
passed by the MACT in Mw:(“3.l’,V:l3£§_4/”9’5;VV: wife and
children of the deceas.e’d_Avtteruj;’A MACT seeking
compensation in respect. husband of
the first occurred on
23/7/’1M993v.y,.v”T;ibfiinal.::a§t;%r considering the rival
.contentionslv”}1’asV _’aw.a;1*.ded the compensation of
Rs. 1,38,ooo/g yvithAV.ir:te1.:eest
y,._%l2.t*.The counsel for the appellant while
Judgement and award would contend that
not justified in fastening the liability
on .44the”‘V.yIn’surance Company. The contention of the
learnedlllcounsel is that there was violation of the terms
– Aandlicondition of the policy in as much as, the deceased
was an un–authorised passenger in the vehicle and in
that context the Insurance Company cannot be made
l
g-
av.
liable for reimbursement of the compensation in–«favour
of the insured and if at all any liability is
it can only be against the owner of the
insurance company.
3. Learned counsel for thei’~responvdent*ho.weVe’r.p
seeks to justify the award ‘passed the It
contended that the noticed’ the said
contention and in by it has
referred to that the deceased
was i taken and therefore,
he was and accordingly
has fastened ‘the Insurance Company.
_-4. “the rival contention I have firstly
perused the clajmllpetitions filed by the claimants before
the’Tribunal.V:l_1’T’hough it is contended by the learned
cou__r1sel- fori’.v’the appellant that there is an admission that
the deceased was an un~authorised passenger, the
pleading in fact would indicate that the claimants had
….contended that he was authorised passenger in the
vehicle, since the deceased was travelling along with
Ji
‘1
goods. Hence, the deceased cannot be consideredas an
unauthorised passenger.
5. In this regard the tribunal has
contention on behalf of the i
was a authorized passenger in Aihei’-truck .’along_the.,g
tailoring machine which het,’,lWas for
the purpose of repair,’ There.fore,”o,n noticinxgi the said
evidence there being’ V11I_’o:’ evidence the
Tribunai to come to the
ivvas travelling along with
the be considered as un-
authorised having come to the said
concilgsioii” was of the opinion that the
appellafxt “hereinVvc’annot claim that they are not liable
for the compensation. Accordingly, the
Trib__unai~ {directed the appellant herein to deposit the
V ‘ compensation.
Therefore, in such circumstance when the
.,,Ti”ibunai has noticed the evidence on record and has
it rendered finding of fact that he was accompanying the
i
7:
goods in the vehicle and when there is no other contrary
evidence available on record, I see no reason tovinterfere
with the finding rendered by the Tribunal.
my view the present appeal is devoid of _1’1*ie’ritsf;,V.t’1’rieV ‘_s.arn_e V’ »
is accordingly dismissed. The amo.iii’it if’an3.i”inAVVdVe’pois.it
either before this Court or’i’oe’fore PrineipaIiV._]3er:1Ch~0’f thissi
Court shall be transmitted T’ri_bur1ai.~..,.
In terms of the stands disposed salad pppp A. Emdgg Vrnh