IN THE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 7"' DAY Q}: JANIJAR§<..2O~ii<)«. _ ,4 "
BEFORE; i
THE HON' BLE MR. JUST.EVCBxANiA¥\il_D.13\ii§i%_RE£)E5Y
WRIT PETITION No. :e2é§*;_40'i<i 20()i6i(GM-.!iC')
BETWEEN: i *
The Branch Maii:;ige._r, " A .
The Oriental irisufgnce C--_0mpe1"ny 'Li;Ti--i"tec3_,_.}
Opposite t0,KEIB__ (}..Efi--{:e', »
«M.C.R:eiidiiiMéifi;1y_;1':'§.4iiV'
Represe11te'd'b3r the.fA4sis»isiiinffs/Iiunage1',
The Oi'iei::;_ai' Ensuif;_mce-Ci':---mfa;5::1'Eiy Limited,
Regionai Oi'i'ic6'- A
Leo .Sn'oppia1g €()Vi"npiEex,'
'~ _ N(:..;:}4j3;ifiE-/5§5VA, Reside fiey----R<)ad,
, Ba;1g;a1Q'ref546()._O25. ...PETITIONER
Advocate)
A Smt.Sak'_amma,
V' -- Wife. ofChikkad21segowda,
Aged about 46 ye.a1's,
Residing at Yeraganahalii,
Maddur Taluk,
Mandya I)isu'ieI.
Ix.)
2. Sri.B.Ra\/E,
Son of Biligowda,
Aged about 37 years.
Residing z1tNo.74/A, 10* Main,
l\/lanjunatha Nagar,
Bangaiore-- .3 O. .._.. 9
(By M/s.K.S.Sreei<anth As.<;ocit1tes i:.;_ike::"i1<)t'ice*..tori'Riesl§ro_iteleiiits
vide order dated: 17.7.08, _ " ' * "
Respondent No 2 served) ' " A
This Writ Petition in”tiiled’iun(iie’iii.g§trti’cfles 22l6’iaiid 227 of the
Constitution of India prayiiig’tt3″‘t;VLi:n§;h the jucignient and award at
Annexure A and dateti.:…9itl–.2.2_0Oe§ p”asSed_—-b’y the Civil Judge
(Senioi’VVDiyi_s’ion) Claims Tribunal, l\/Iaddur
in MVCf.N0.8i84{2(}(){)’Van.cl’ett:., _ .
Thie_Wr_jt .f’eti’tiio’n on for h.earii1g this day, the Court
made the ftiflowving: ~_- A C
‘ante _____ ORDER
C He:1:rd».itl1eiCounsel for the petitioner.
2. V. ‘oetitioner is the insurer of the offending vehicle
“-which iv;_.a;__=.l§ involved in a motor accident. The occupants of the
_ ive’iti.r:le who were injured, namely, the mother and her daughter,
-had sought for compensation on account of the injuries suffered in
the accident. The petitioner herein had entered 2-appearance before
3
3
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and had disputed the
liabiiity, on 21 specific contention that the vehicle. invt)lve*:l was a
goods carrying vehicle and the claimants were…Linat1’tl’ierii’;»i¢d
passe.ngers travelling in 21 goods vehicle. The .Tt’iilitln£t_l”‘ht)Wt3V’€_if,
has faiied to address the objection and has pifoce.eded._t(“r i
compensation and has fastened -l__iabilit3r_o’n the;’peti.:ione_t. ‘The:
petitioner has been precluded filing .a’t1..:i;1]_jpezifl under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1933 iniviejwio’t’.i;Seicit.ion 173 which lays
down 2i.1tifi_eai.iii2\iii;ild»..i9;’ot be_iiiinziintainable if the award is less
than Rs.il'{l,(.i{f}()/–‘tindfit.is”*in”tli’i’s background that the present writ
petitionv is filed as the petitioner is Eeft with no remedy.
the First iitforination Report, it was stated in the
iii’i.rs’t’__instaneve ti.iVi1t”‘.the’in_§ured claiinants were waiting on the road
V . for View of the offending lorry having picked them
unauthorised passengers, it not open for them to
‘ contend that they were travelling as owners of the goods, who
were the clziimzlnts bet’ore. the Motor Accident Claims Tribtinztl,
3
4
such a stand on the part of the claimar1t–resp0ndents being
C()1lll’£;’:l’y to the record is being overlooked by the Tribuiia..l_iitnd the
liability has been ineoiweetly fastened on the petitioijef.’ -1- V
3. Given this circumstance and in vie\t:”0f– .t.’hefeSp’0nder1’ts,
not having chosen to contest the [fr-.,1f€-SE;’I”1{..’ep€lel[_i(}n,ii’ the:”e&>_afiie’ is
allowed. The liability insofar as the petit-ioner isi..c0=j_ce–I1te£i, is set’
aside. The claimants are left at_Iibe11:y”t¢)workmtt their’ remedies
its signing: the owner of the ‘vei1ielefE’~