IN THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 201Q°'--.D
:PRESENT: J V' u '
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.P§Ti1; V '
mbi
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs1f1eE.:
M.F.A§I~1§$;353_7
M.F.A.v 1'Ia..4j}';v63'-O1? 203; '(MW
M.F.A. No.363*:{
New Incasia AsSu:'anee3V .Company_ Ltd. ,
Represented by the.tDjvisiO';1_a1" Manager
No.40, H Floor, Lakshmi VCQ_r"np'1'ex,
K.R.Roacl, Opupéz Vafiiviias hfiispital.
Bangaiore -- 5600024' ' '
.. " ...AppeHant
A'r_ « Advocate}
Anti;
R,M.Se1Varaj, Major,
"«.Na.36';_.J01iy Masjid Road.
_ -_J'0_lIy Mohalla,
V' Bangalore - 560053.
u 2. Annarnaiai,
" S/0. Ramachandran.
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.36, Jolly Masjid Road,
Jolly Mohalla,
Bangalore -- 560053.
2. The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
D.A.B Lakshmi Complex,
II floor, No.40, K.R.RoaCi,
Fort, Opp: Vanivilas Hospital, V
Bangalore -- 560002. '
3. Annarnalai,
S/o. Ramachandran,
Hindu aged 29 years,
R/at No.8, I cross, _a ,
Borninanahalli, Hosur Roa_d._._. ' V =
Bangalore. 0' V " ' ".«..Respondents
(By Sri. K.N.:i'rals:as}o~.--§AdV«.:_for''R1'-7 ' V
R2 Served arid unr;epre'sented- , '
Notice to R3. dispen's;e_d_ W'§._fli.__ V/Cidated 04 / 07 / 05}
**3***** _
This MFA is filed U/sr. vI73[1} of MV Act against the
Judgment a:1_d"Awa"rd lclatedE_;20/ 12/2003 passed in MVC No.
757/2000 on"th_e file'-- of '*.Aci'dl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
and ]\/_'.iern'oer, MACT--V, Bangalore (SCCH--5), partly allowing
..A'll*the V-..._c'Ia:iH1 petition "" "for compensation and seeking
enhancerrient of compensation with interest.
coming on for Admission this day,
N.K.g_PATI_I.; 'J, delivered the following:
:JUDGMENT:
~ ‘0 «Admit.
it These two appeals by the Insurer and the
Vclaimant are arising o of the same judgment and
._”‘_MM_g_W,c._.:»
award dated 20/ 12/2003 passed in MVC No.
on the file of the Addl. Judge, Court of Small A’
Member, MACT–V, Bangalore [SCC1’T;5′)V.”‘{‘her’ein;8fter__C:ailedH”‘.
as Tribunal for short).
3. The Tribunal by its ‘j–u:éigmerit’*–ahdV has
awarded a sum of ?1,48,VEiQ§)/~ witdht at «’70/6 pfa., from
the date of petition till as against the
claim made ‘by_ ezamaiggt V%4,5o,oo0/–, on
account of by him in the road
traffic aceiderit;vgth’ it h V d
4. hi case are:
The aged about 40 years at the
and healthy, working as Coolie
hdujrrder’ Selvaraj, owner of the offending vehicle.
‘I’hat,__”‘on at about 5.00 p.m., claimant was
‘travelling iii a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA.O1.Z.2345
Uttanagiri road along With others and when
came near Jogipatty, Tamilnadu State, at that
.. ;time, the driver of the said Vehicle drove the same in .3
Arm
1’
6
aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurer
has presented M.F’.A.No.3637/2004
fastening liability on it cannot be sustained. 9
to be set aside and the
M.F.A.No.4163/2004 contendirig the at jf,
compensation awarded by thle”‘7i’ribvunal’-isinaelequate
and it requires ‘to the
impugned judgment hi it it
5. We it eounsel appearing
for for claimant.
for the Insurer at the
outset subm_litted”‘that, .-thetilribunal has Committed an
erroroflllaw, rnuchp less material irregularity resulting in
rriis-.,c:a.rriage_:o*f, justice in fastening the liability on the
he submitted that the case of the
-vc1airnuant””V_a’s: per the claim petition is that, he was
lllV.wor’kir1g has Coolie under the owner of the offending
‘Cveliiele and was one of the inmates of the car which
going from Bangalfre to Tarnilnadu &long with
k_W__m_”__W__m__,,_,..«-
£2
and therefore, interference by this court is
for.
8. Further, learned counsel.”fer”the«,clainf1’ant Sri.
‘i’.C. Satishkumar submitted that»; Tribunal it
committed an error in
compensation under aeeeuntl of the
injuries sustained by l”.”ella1’1}_.;«tit1t’.I’d_’jTherefore, he
submitted and award
passed by to be modified by
9. learned counsel for the
Insurer; thelelaimant the owner of the Vehicle at
.e0nsli’deralb!e’l’ lengthbfl time and after careful perusal of
thell llafaailable on file, the points that arise for
V V’ our c’o_nsi._de-ration are as under:
.. (i)z 1. Whether the liability fastened on the Insurer
by the Tribunal is sustainable in law?
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable?
%W
Regarding Point No. 1:
10. As rightly pointed out by the learried M
for the Insurer, it is crystal clear”fr’0m__ the,
conditions of the Ex.R2~_ instiraiice ‘
insurance risk is not coveretilvt«’:i:’I’i. respe~ct”ct” if
they travel in the priyate bytlthetylvéowner.
Further, it is clear frorn 147 of the
Act that the pelicjyrglylof to be taken in
terms of the liability in
respecttir arising out of and
aiso in of every employee of
the pejrson insuilvfedi hizntienthe policy. Such liability must
h0weV’erV”becQVered in respect of three classes of
thee’-insured, namely:
A’~Ea] ,.__v’aI1D”‘einp1oyee engaged in driving the vehicle
a covered by the policy.
an employee engaged as a conductor of the
Vehicle or for examining the tickets on the
//
fix
….»-»——“””‘”””‘–“HwH”
I
xts’n_’f ~ V . _V
The owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit the
entire compensation with interest at 7% pa on the airiotint
awarded by the Tribunal and with interest at 60/<)__;j'§'a;. _
enhanced compensation, within three weeks "
receipt of a copy of this judgment and ti 4. d ' V
The enhanced compensation be'
favour of the claimant iiiimediatelféjon'
of the offending vehicle. V it d V
The manner of the Tribunal
remains undist§;rhed'.–
The statutoryfvdepositdvmaden bydthe Insurer shail be
refunded to the Instirer. » d ‘
Office is dz:-;jrect.ed to”dravir the award, accordingly.
sdgx
JUDGE
Sd/3
JUDGE