IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2??" DAY OF MAY 20;;
BEFORE E E 4
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE~'SUBHAS':_H 554,233': 4':
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL _:~i1c§:.E'i4:E7's;/2~oe8(mi§'V .
BETWEEN:
The Branch manager ' ._ ¢ _ 4.
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,;"
Tejas Complex Ifioor, _ '
Sayyajirao RoacL,M-ysoije E ~.
Rep.by the Ré.giofiava}_Vsn»a'na1gér 4_ " '
Leo Shopping €'_:«ori*sp!':;x _ V '
44/45, Resideri.c\,-#'&1Road,«.. «.
Bangal0'r4e*~. 0254 "
.. APPELLANT
(By Sri. raE ReddE'y;..."Adv.)
I Tr dead,
. represenited by J
W50' Karegante Shivannagowda LRS. R2 & R3
éi':--i\?aiingagowda
iianjundegowda
2"" 8: 3"' are sons of late Karegante
Shivannagowda; AH are 52/0
A3-
Laianakere Viifage. Bindiganavife Habit
Nagamangala Taiuk
Mandya District.
Shivaram ,5/o N.B.Najundegowda
R/o Adahatli Viliage
Post: Doddabaia
Bindiganaviie Hobii.
(By Sri.Y.D.Harsha, Adv. for.R«4._;__ "
Sri. N.Surendra Kumar, Adv. 1'o_r"§?:.Z & R3) '
Iwns wLF:A.is {med dndér SéctKni~1?3(1) ofrav Act
against the judgment and passed
H1P4VC No.25/2oo5 on tfigjwefértdvn judge (Srl)nJ &
JMFC. Nag.ar'n44arE§a'_Ia', _award_i'r.{;v ' adwttcompensation of
Rs.3,O1,OO'C/7 from the date of
pedumiundepggEf'_>.
ThtisAppeai«Vcto'rn:i4n'g':"on for admission this day, the
Cou rt. delivered' the foI"éov\ii'.ng:
JUDGMENT
matter was listed on 25.3.2011, none
‘w._’appears”‘for the respondent. Today also none appears for
if the respondent.
gr”~,.qREs§oNoENTs\px
séleffitf
Q.)
I
2. The matter is considered on merits. Heard the
ceuhsei for the appeiiaht.
3. I.A.2;’2008 for additional documents ”
-4. Appeiiant/insurer is quest=iA_0ni:n.glth’eijudg-nfiehtA_’_ah1d.’
award in M.V.C.No.25/2006 d’a.ted 7*3i§iav 2G8:?;d:rj_.the rite f.
of the Civii Judge (Sr.Dn) and Nagiiahdanlygala.
5. Learned counsei Vf;t’_.’_:’i* thefiaiphjeiitiivajrztyeubmits that the
Tribunal has awarded tiff ‘i2ie’.”3,01,000/– with
interest. theminsurer is iiable to
Bay the submitted that the
poiicy:7.Qf” Aah Act policy and not a
comprehehsihdve pV’oi_icAy._,V “1’r1″~~’i’this regard, he has produced a
c0p’yi’«:of _tVhe_V_poliicy «a.i_Q_ng with the memo.
‘ihe.VV’dec~eased one Shivahnagowda -died in a road
acCi«denVt’tha§t eccurred on 2.?.1999. He was piiiion rider on
scodte-cheering Regh Noii<A11/H -8840.
1?'. It is new settled law that under Section 14? of the
M.V.Act, the insurer is not liable to pay the comperlielatioh
in respect of the death or injury of a pillion
cycle or a scooter, if the policy is an Act poii.cyv_;_j"l*lVovée'v4er',3 if
the insurer has collected extra plzemiytlrhj.cove'ri'n.Q"t.li.lg"'ri,:$k:'
of the pillion rider, the ire'l3l__lrerthis""liabie.77te.itpay':
compensation. The Apex the oli General
Manager, United \/std Laxmi Si
others reported in AIR'.2..£5_O–9 626 has
held that to pay the
compensationfi_i_hg:reéwpectlof policy.
=th'el._::'afor.esaid decision of the Apex
court, asVxth_e pQl'lcy'ls"arl~~'i'Act policy, I find that the liability
01:._':b4t'3:l:'l€E__:lllE§tJl'€l'Z'lVl&S…..lC0 be absolved and accordingly! the
' miner"of'th'e::'iJehicle is held liable
'To:'this extent, the appeal is partly allowed. The
.llaibility~-of the insurer held by the Tribunal is set aside. The
' '~A_pwner is liable lie pay the entire compensation.
The amount in deposit be refunded to the appetéant.
Since the appeaf is aiiowed, I.A.3/O8 does
for consideration and accordingly, the same is.A4'Li–§sn1:i'séIéd,3-T "
Msu/–