S/o Venkatanarayanan Owner of Bus No.KA--34/4464 R/o Kasturi Nagar, 13*' Cross Viyanagararn Andhra Pradesh State. 5, M/s.BalajiTrave1s, 37, 12-61, KGO's Colony Pattanji Reddy Colony Vishakapatnam»~530 007. , _. Ci» 'Respondents This MFA is filed against the impugned Judgment and.A'v'aaifd passed in MVC No.2o9/2oo':%:;,§;n the file: or the"VivI.__,.#:§ddl. Senior Civil Judge and Fichitradurga, awarding a cornpensation'"'of'.'iis,?6,8_00_Z¥ withH__ititerest @ 6% p.a. from the dategof petition.tiii«.depo'siVt. . _' This 'appealCV"e.o'rni1ig:'°'on for admission this day, the Court tie! ivered theiollotv-.rir1vg: JUDGMENT
H ‘– matter is listed today for admission, it
[is takenhpforf final disposai by consent of the learned
“.j_’Cou011se1″‘for the appe11ant–Insurance Company.
2. The appe11ant–insurer has challenged in this
appeal the correctness of the impugned Judgment and
Award dated 30.04.2010 passed in MVC No.209/200′?
by the iearned II Addl. Civil Judge [Sr.Dn.) 8: Member
C”
U-J
Addl. MACT, Chitradurga, {hereianfter referred to..as_
‘Claims Tribunal’ for short).
3. Arguments of Sri learned
for the appellant–insurer ai’er’*heard.w.. the
impugned Judgment
4.». It is involved in
the accident 2.2005 was owned by
one thpirdllllrespondent before the
Claims insured with the present
appell’ant–Insu,rance Company which was fourth
beforethe Claims Tribunal. It is also not in
said vehicle was taken on lease by
was first respondent before the Claims
3 .c,.CpC’i’ribuna’l.. and that the accident occurred during the
C ‘subsistence of lease in respect of the said vehicle
“resulting in bodily injuries to the claimant.
5. On the above facts, learned Counsel for the
appe1lant–insurer strongly contends that under a
¢-~.§'””*~*-»’
contract between K.S.R.T.C. and the owner of
vehicle, the said vehicle was taken on ‘
K.S.R.T.C. and therefore the–l”appe1larit_}’4in.surarir;e
Company which issued insurance it’:
the said vehicle in the narneVof.l:’it”sgowner.his..in’otVV”liable’V:to
indemnify the owner wasnoit used
by him but it was used K.S.R.T.C.
This contention’:’«£c:anno__’t view of the
decision of of United Insurance
Vs’.d”SV;VIi.Prasanna and Others
reportedin! Head Note (A) and para 6
read as.unde”1′:._ ‘V
itV(A):’Mio~ro1§1.~vEH1cLEs ACT, 1933. Sections 2(3o),
168 ~— Motor vehicle leased by owner
;”Vto.’another — Bodily injury to third party in
‘accident in which leased vehicle was involved
—- insurance Company disputing its liability to
satisfy award of compensation on ground that
lessee not having separately insured vehicle in
his own name inspite of being deemed to be
owner of vehicle by virtue of his possession of
vehicle under agreement of lease, is not
entitled to be indemnified against third party
c-*—:””””—-“”-”