.. V. -NVu".'2-B,*TUniiyA Bu=ikliiijgé Anmm.
ssak927. ..APPELLANI'
% (By--.R.R§k§fifpdm, Advocate)
Coolie,
B GALORE
DATED THIS THE 27*" AW'? AA { u
BEFORE; * % % A
THE HON'BLE MR. msficg % % %
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST my}
BETWEEN :
The New ';As;g;srgf;¢¢V é_ V
j %
The mafiages', V'
Regional (Nfitm, " _ g = _ '
About 21 ywrs,
Narasawr,
Taluk Bndami,
Bijapur District -- 587 201. RESPONDENT . * , V
(Shti. Shivukumar S Badawadagi, Adv, for ‘ ; ‘
Shri Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate for Rwpond_e::$-.-2_):, > ”
rrsu-mun
This Miacellanwus Firxl A'” H V’
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles A..~:,. judgmmt
and award dalad ::o.l93i2004 on
the file of the Member, Tribunal-III
Bagalkol, awaixiizag a 0Y.R$;20;l0O/- with cost
and future inte:*3st’;’at the pg; from me date of
petition fill lill nsulisuliml.
This. . coming on for hearing this day, fiollowing: -
insurer is in aweal challenging the awmd of
‘V V’ V» in Ihvour of the 13:31 L
3. The fiwls are that the find rcapuiuml while travelling
as a @1133: in in goods vehicle sustained injuries in an
fa
“V3”
. .
accident involving the said vehicle md ciaimx
before the Motor Accident: Claims Tribunal.
vehicle and awarded of L’
iuluresn nm.,,,_ 11]{]”gh the yum k as mm A
the firs! respondent 3 goods
liable to mm’ % kk so dim am the
iusumr shall :3 demnf and mama’ the
samo from the osméfa cm. I! is this which is
under chalI§_nga._ V V ‘ .’
the appclluni would submit ihal the
of to tin: clfoct tout the clainmt was an
in 3 goods vehich: would clearly
. ‘4’V.’gh;_:oivoV’1l1o’Aappellanlofaay liabiliiy to satisfy the claim. In
Tribunal itself has aflirmod Ibis mu posasm but,
fiowever has pmcwlud in direct as afowsaid which is whoily
%
impermissible in law and would cits: gudmms in New
Assurwwe Cwnpcasy Limited vs. Vedwali
0mm 17 (2007) ACC 377(s»::) ff %
Company mm vs. Knslmtzppah ass
lo contend lhal um .3; fiaslenod for an
ewaaerapfflae . ‘
[ha legal position has been oumxztly slausd
the appeflanl, the Sugxm Conn ‘3: an calms:
urjmgmfi has Md than it would be juxl and mm»
V’ when third party risks are involved in order to protect
inwnssls, am; such third parties would be loudly unawnn: of
the extent of fmbilily of the insurar untkr the wnlraut uf
i:n:umxwc,ilwouldbejustm1dreasunab!ek2¢lirwtlhe
%
insurance company to pay the amount of
then to recover from the owner of llrsttvehiclei ‘resialléieyy of l he
the matter, the Counsel would
caused to the appellant since t
that am is no wammt t
S. the appellant would
point out cum has elearly affirm. ed the
position the liability to cover the risk of
the travelling in in goods vehicle
be covered and not that ofa passenger and
passenger in a goods vehicle and
cf the Supreme Court to an insurer to pay mid
VA in several jzflgmmts referred to by the Cuumwl fur the
respondents is by virtue of the Court seeking to invoke its
power under Article 142 of the Cunstitutixm of India. Tlw
Supreme Court has, in the Ennis and eireumehmees wt’ each
%
ease, either affirmed the liability to pay and
such a. measure by virtue of Amie 142 of am at e
India and such a can
issued by this Court in um f
Tribunal has acted eomptetely Ai!2_fe~wriling
the eontmet of insmanee liability where
none exists.
6. In as the but stands, there unless specifically
agreed in 11…; “go fl ‘heave: do ask oft: pasmga in a goods
veigioe. _: hm, admittedly them is no
such of the passenger munety, the first
was tmvet-ting as such in the vduiele
‘ the Tribunal was in error in
an pay the amount and recover the some from the
This Court unmet invoke Article 142 of the
émsutuum oflndia in doing so. However, the claimant» rm:
%
waspumlunt shall be :1: liberty to uncover the
eempeeeesiee from [he owner er Ihe vehicle if he ie
The appeal is allowed actx;gtlii:gl§,r.A_ ivfi; K 2
deposit is to be refunded to me _1
RV