13 THE HIGH GOURT OF flRHATM% AT BAIIGALORE DATED THIS THE 18*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2008 BEFORE THE HOP-VBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH BAD!
:
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
– Having its Registered Oficc at
go
ASAF’ Ali Road, New Delhi and
its Bangalore Regional Gfiioe at
LEO Shopping Complex,
Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore»-S60 001, _’
Represented by its Regional M c;.’_
Kasargagod Branch Oflice of the appellant
is now repxesentm by its Regional ‘
. ‘ ‘ , ” ….API-“‘ELLAN’I’
” ‘($3.5 M. Rafi}, Adv.)
AND: .
1
Dcvamma W,’ 9. hfiudlégmfida,
_ Hinsfin, I’+’~::ma1e,”Aduit _
. Rfa. Viilage,
v_ . Pt:.Iiyea}1a£11é:14’l’e§Iuk,
?€1ySt2r¢”‘I3istfi¢t4571 466.
Hi. kumar.
_ S/O; Ayyalzzia, Hindu, Male, Adult
‘ R] 0. ‘fharralagexi Village,
V “r.,s1aettige;–i, Virajpet Taluk,
A ” Scum Cloorg-5’?’1 213.
…RESPONDEN’I’S
(R1 and R2 Served}
an.-van».-v
This M.F’.A. is filed U/5. 173(1) of MV Act against the
juckgmcznt and awaxd dated 08.08.2005 passed in MVC
1’Jo.141[98 on the file of the Judge (Sr. D31.) &. JMFC,
MACT, Hunsur, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,?5,4DO/~ with
inttzrcst at 15% pa.
-2-
This appeal coming on for ‘Hearing’ this day, the Court
delivexed the following:
s
This appeal is by the Insurance Company quesfioxIeiI”;ge’§r1e’V;~ ”
liability.
2. The claimant is the mother of the’;._
a road accident on 13.2.1997. It is»Ati*:z’;t,
was Working as a coolie and
No.KA-12/2443. Hewever, thcféf fig; loiijfdziee the
same in a rash and negligent of Which.
the lorry over (fwd on the
spot due to \<.;::§:,\ ~ 'V
3. The the matter on the
question of. that. the deceased was
g1%if{1itoes’:e-fiasseenger in a goods vehicle and there is
no of compensation for the loss of life of a
travelling in a goods vehicie nor there is
the provisions cf Section 147 of the Motor
wee-Ce
tribunal on consideration of the same. at para 9
” V f L’ * observed that;
-4-
6. From thz: findings on issue No.3 by the
is no dispute that the deceased was travelling as a in
a lorry. The tribunal has also rightly .
Insurance Company is not liable. Havingg ‘said ‘.36,’ ” ”
has dimmed the Insurance Compaxayigto
same.
7. The Apex in j*::t£i’g’;;1cnt of
Subbhayainma and Others £2-§::”~.’-;cv1§’x’rVcj*;z”1 _
‘It is,;_ :’zr=….-fifiite of the
provision
oontiginepi. respect to persons
other xhan the goods or his
authonizégri represénicitizie remains the same.
Alflixiugh tfr4e”‘c:e*a_;_.rV1:1v¢er cj”1he goods or has authorized
. V. ” & 3?’én1a11″ be covered by the poficy
Vin. reaped of a goods vehicle, it was
%’ – *%’:32:eg;i£§n of the Iegislature to pmvide for
of the insurer with respect to
, especially gratuitous passengers,
‘~ Vwkp were neither ozmtemplaied at the tirne the
of insurarwe was entered into, not’ any
was paid to the extent of the benefit of
insurance to such category of people. “‘
8. The Apex Court also considered the case of National
Insumnce Co. Ltd. Vs. Chafla Bharathamma and 01:11:18
fwg,
-5-
and award of the tribunal is set. aside, in 3:: far as the
Insurance Company is concerned, the claimants .
against the owner of the lorry.
The ammmt in deposit is mam} xefgi:ded«. fb} .
appellant.
wa-