U I I Co Ltd vs Bahu Bajirao Patil & Anr on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
U I I Co Ltd vs Bahu Bajirao Patil & Anr on 3 June, 2009
Author: K.Ramanna
11:: um HIGH count or     

cmcurr BENCH Ar       

DATED nus THE 3*"? DA Y.  k 

yawn % J
mm HON'BI..E 

% $15'-'~'1 5'*'5?i 

IL-=     A

United   Ltd.,
No. 1568, sita Snjr_-iti,  Marmti Galli,
Belgau.m~--59O   '


  .....   APPELLANT
 R.Ma.ne, Adv)


  sh;-Laahu Bajirao Patil,

H n «Ageyd about 44 years,
_ x "_Q,cc:Coolie, R/o Asoga,
 Khanapur Taluk.

Mr.Adav Philips Lobo,

Age:Major, Occ:Business,

R/o Harasanavadi,

Khanapura Taluk.  RESPONDENTS

(By Srisanjay S.Ka eri, Adv for R1
122 st!) W M

This appeal is filed undef ‘

Act against the judgment”; and: award’. ”.dated

31.12.2007 passed in Mvcno. 1534/2o%aega;;k the fi:e%f%
of the in Add}. Civil Judge(:1;-_Dn;;%%am:1Add}. MACT,

Belgaum sitting at Kh’a;1apur, ” «..awa1ff<:1ing a
compensation of Rs.v1'Q,O0(}/'4-intere$t 6% p.a.
from the date of petitimfti and etc.,


Between: __

United India. Ifi:1suéfa:1 ($6 . , Lid; ,

No. 1563, am S:nriti, Ma’r~.1ti Galli,

Belgaunpsgo 002; g ‘_ J

33: its Manager. k % APPELLANT

I3? ilialifiana. Adv)


1. ” ..Shfif (§:3’1:§éppa, S/0 Baflappa Badas,

“Aged abbut 26 years,
Occvzfloolie, R/0 Naik Galli,
‘A .-Khaiiapur.

2. Lmmdav Philips Lobe,

Agetfviajor, Occ:Business,
12/ o Harasanavadi, *
Khanapura Taluk. RESPOHDEWIS

[By Srtsanjay S.Ka.tageri, for R1

: C


This appeal is filed underV$e>ction” of . 1

Act against the judgment?’ a.wa.z_f’d–_ , date d
31.12200? pas.»-ml in MVC Nol’:156j3f2GO6~ ;:12«kt3i:=:ffi:e
0f the I}! Add}. Civi} Judge (Sr.Dn.)’V-andT.A.dd1.’
Belgaum sitting at ‘I<;_1h'.a;_r;a.pi1r, V awaraing a"
compensation of Rs.}O,OOO/}?VV..wit_h ixiterésit @ 6% 13.3..
fmm the date of petitign ti1lV.Vreal_isé.%:ion ai1'd~etc.,

[In 1»1.1=_:,__.a_;.N*o.s46§/2%oe3: '


United 1ndi23.V.I1é.s.=;g;raftce:; Ltdfi,

N0. 1 56 8;, “Sit$”j;SIIiiiii:i. ti” Galli,
Beigauin~S90 0Qi?__.”‘~M — I ‘

By its Ma.nagér APPELLANT

my mug, Adv)


S/_¢ut 36 years,
“”‘C3c£__:iC,6iie, R/0 Toiagi,
Khvarzapur Taluk.

‘ x ‘IA\}§r.Adav Philips Loba,

Agerhdajor, Occflusiness,
R/0 Harasanavadi,
Khanapura Taluk. RLESPONDENTS

(By Srtsanjay S.Kata.geri, Adv for R1


conditions of the policy issued by it in fa1_._r–e.uri :ef’ej’ew:i1erv,

of the vehicle — respodnent–2 herein.

3. According to appellagey theV”pV_eh°cy

to cover the risk of orfly oneL”Ve§:1puloyee under
the insured»resp0n<:iei;.t " and that in
respect of the aecident appellant has
already safisefie';1e eahee €ai%}a;§d:V.VV"'pese'ed by the we
Commiseibn.ieijéVh'i;t:i:ft.; 247/ 2006 dated

08.01 .2100'? of a cleaner and a coeiie

woz'k1'ng :1n dmj ree'pe'11ciei1t No.2 herein. Therefore, it

prve$?ed-L the1ieh i1ity fastened on the appellant to

to the claimants and thereafter to

" recover theeaxne from the ewnerwflzsured is liable to

set Hence, it has prayed to allow these



already discharged its part of obligation;:–:ef§$.e:f’–u

policy — EX.R.2 issued by it in _favo;;r ‘4i::i’si.12*e”<3.g

owner of the vehicle, it is not }iéible–._ti) infieirxnify

pay any compensation te 'No.1 V'


6. EX.R.2–InSf4_g;ren¢§,… before court
czlearly a sum of
Rs.1OG/:~~ ‘efeeeoicvner-cummdriver and
further :’E.’:s..25/- to cover the risk of

one em_pIoyee.xf;for}{£I1Ag»1iiin’der the owner of the vehicle.

‘E’~here{:o°re;»: i11A.fsrie*ezAV&§fA’f}1e fact that the appellant had

vs4;L§éa¥1,zne.Iv.ii j. u ” – . . .1 ~’

The.’_’e13§eunt in deposit before this Court made by

i H H egpefient shall be refunéed te the appellant-

“riegfiesit the award ameunt.

‘Respondent No.2 is given six weeks time to


In the facts and circumstances of th_f!-ca.s:é;’}:”fi1§é1*e%’v.’

is no order as to costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *