IN THE HIGH coma' OF 1<A12NA'§A:ead, Bapgalare 568 001.
Rep: By its '1;')_€;;1iiy.Ey{Iar:agcr
. . .AppeHaI1t:
sri.R.v.1$:;:;dagoud.e. & Sri.B.C.Sc::etharama Rao, Advs.)
'3f_fAN1:i3_ . "
' U Smt. Hemavathi,
2 "W/0 late Ashok,
Aged about 26 years,
C 2, Kumari Pooja,
D/0 late Ashok,
Aged about 7 years,
A' .: ~Vé.}3;ei;:e»..a}g'é3i11stt§1e Judgment and Award dated 07.02.2005
em: MVC 1810.698/2004 on the fiie of the IV Addl.
VV Judge, IV MAST, Guibarga, awarding compensation
. ;'IRs.3,00,00G/-» with interest at 6% pa. fmm the date of
u d V d - 'petition tiil realisation.
3. Kumari Jyothi,
13/ 0. late Ashok,
Aged about 4 years,
Since respondent No.2 and 3 are'Minors represented by their mother” « A_ A , _ _
and natural guardian i.e., 1*-‘it res4po:§:den'{.q_ ‘
4. S1:nt.Maremma,
W/o Bheemraya,
Aged about 54 years,’
All are We .[)ot£iI(oHi Vi11éége;e”d%} V}
Chinchoii’£’a1=.1k,V ‘H.
Gulbarga Distri: e
5. Gopal Rfidtiy,” Vi.;:__ _ _ ‘
S/o \:’ansanthreda1y,
Aged about ‘ –
R/a C1:-.a11dapuI”§’
Chinchoiie’Ta{u}{‘,_ V
Gulbarga I5is£réct’– .
(OW}.:1er’~0f Tate. No.GJ«-12/T-83G5)
V _ –. , .. Respondents
(Sri.§Z€if1a1’f;:ia~Nf’aHi?§a1jun, Adv., for R1 and 4)
This Niiseellaneous First Appeal filed U/s 173(1) of MV
b»/
This Appeal coming on for orders thisfiday,
Got-A1.AGow1)A J, delivered the following:– ”
JUDGEIENT
Though this matter is listed iriv-t1ie:—-ordc:§rstfi§: V’
consent of both the iearned Counsel for «is
up for final disposal.
2. Respondent No.5, the oxw{I2sii”‘Lof”‘t{io ofi°endi,I§g vehicle
though served, reinaineifi’ ,the Tribunal.
Therefore, ?:11ei’iss?eo.i5z»1nc€%§V4of to is dispensed with.
3. In viewof tho’ assigned at para– 14 of the
i;31.pug2;11c?:¢:i¥ Eiidwiéiis {tie plea raised by the appe11a;r:.’»:-
Iiis;.1»:*{:;iir;o ., that it is not iiabis to pay the
vCOII1}’.)(EtAviS:?111ii.)VI1V’i-‘V_”ii{)V:i1=i;i}8 claimants for the reason that the
doceaseciu fiavolxied in a goods vehicle: as a gratuitous
iho Tribunal examined the said pica, afiior
“to the decisions of the Supreme Court in 1(2{}O4)
H’VV”–.._{L’ii»’¥’.M’;i::1ge i. so and 19004) ACC 524, wherein it is heid by
3:116 Apex Court that the insurance company is iiaioie to pay
componsatiozi and in turn recovor the said amount from the
i»«/
%d; §Nfd[V JUDGE
insuled if any violation of the conditions of
allowing the deceased to travel as a
The said view has been reiterated
case of Baljeet Singh Kaur’s Indview of the
insurance company to recover the insured,
in the event of any violatiolfof the policy, we do
not find any good the impugned
judgment. is devoid of
merit. Acco1’d’ingl’}f, it’: dis.n1issed’; ‘ ‘
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-