MFA.NOS.11186/O5
C/W 11187/05 & 11188/{)5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS T!IE 2312» DAY 01: sEpTEMBE12..2i31b' "
PRESENT ' 'V "
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1c:E~ILc3;.R.%§M.3§S:I~iI.
. . .
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1cE'2gfN.K£:$1iAvA1stA'Té;A'arAnIA3
M.F.A.NO. 111861OF 2{105 C/"W. ' I
M.¥?.A.NQ. 1118A'i""GF' 2O05_AND
M.F.A.NQ["'311£.38 §)F 2€)_O5 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO. 11186 or 2005 '
=
UNITED INDIA§1NSU.RA~NC_E LTD”; ”
BELLARY DO A i__ ‘ ‘ ._
# 25, sHAN2<A9RAr4AARA1:iA.NAA–Bt;:LD1N–es;"
M . GROAD, BANGA»1_,oRE'–5@o' 0.0 1.
REP. BY ITS AASsIsT'Am?_M.AN'Ag}E:.R' '
SMT. SHOBHA RAJEND1f<A_P12As,AD. …APPELLANT
(BY sR1.s.s.KdL«£wAD F-QR-A
SRI.f;Zs';vCL,SEET'HAVRA1\J{ RAG, AD'v'OCA"£'ES}
V
' ._ '-xIy*,ro'G.'M_r_:r13Es'0o13 SAB,
A AGE3D.AB-OUT 34 YEARS,
V si\xr'£.JA1–1:RA,
AA TAGEQ. ABOUT 57 YEARS,
AA ta
» _»Ki;1'M.SHAME3ENA B1,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
D/O MEHBOOB SAB,
CHLHUSSAIN,
MFA.NoS.11186/O5
C/W 11187/O5 8: 11188/05
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
S/O MEBBOOB SAB,
5. CHLMUNNA,
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
S/O MEHBOOB SAB,
6. CE-ELSHABBIR PASHA, ~
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, I
13/0 MEHBOOB SAB,
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 BEING’M’I~NORS,*.. , _
REPTD BY THEIR MOTHER THE I RE,,S’PONDENT_
ALL ARE RESIDENTS GANIKEHAL VILL.AG3%3x, ”
BELLARY TALUK 85 DISTRICT. ..
7. THE DIVISIONAL CON’TROI.I;–ER,. ;
I<SRTC,BELLARY DIVISION, I
BELLARY.
8. MR.ABDUL?_KHEJD_DUS, , “” ”
MAJOR,,~Sy’C«._AB.D”(;L SA1I.._AM,, _
RESIDINS AT No.51/5_o’,») ._
wARD__NO;=T5, CROSS, MIL-L.ARI’>ET,
BEI;LARY.~. _ .
(OWNER OF AUTO’BEAvRI’NG’NO.I<A–34/34 12)
. . _..RESPONDEN'I'S
(BY SRLRAVI {r;«–.I¢IOSM'ANIA,'.,ADYOCATE FOR R8
R1 E: R2 SERV}I3D,"' '
R3. «TO R6 ARE MI-DIQRSVAND REP. BY R1}
*.TIIIS APREAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAIINST,,T}~EEJUDG*MENT AND AWARD DA'I'ED:16.08.2005 PASSED
IN"-MW; .NO..21,_l/V2001 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MAC'I'–II,
BELLARY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,50,000/~ WITH
INTEREST 6%, P./–\. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
– =1\IIA.F.A.I§i€), :’1 1 187 OF 2005
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD,
, BELLARY DO
A #25, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDINGS,
MFA.NoS.11186/O5
C/W 11187/{)5 & 11188/G5
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE~56O 00}.
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER 1
SMT. SHOBHA RAJENDRA PRASAD.
{BY SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD FOR
SR1. E3.C.SEETI-IARAM RAO, ADVOCATES}
AND: –
1. SMTMEHABOOE BI,
W/O ERAJA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2. MR.B.BHAKSHA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
3. MR. SHASHA SAB,
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS; V ,
S/O RAJA SAB, .
4. cHT.MEHEOORii,’SAE,, ._
AGED AB’OU’F_ 14- ~’2r,EAR_S,__
S/O RAJA SA_B;,_ ” ‘
5. CHI’,ASD’UL;SV5S_AB,5,S’ _ .
AGED ABOu’T.1:2.,TEARS, , ‘
S/O ‘RAJA SA.B,*. _
5. KUM.GH~OUS.EBT, .
AGED ABOUT_ 10 ‘YEARS,
Ego, RAJA SAB; A _____ _, .
IA’-RESPONEENTS.1$rO..4, 5 8:, 6 BEING MINORS,
RERTE_ BY TEE;.R’1\AOTHER TRE I RESPONDENT.
ALL,A1′?:’E RES1ID.EN.TS MINCHERI VILLAGE,
BEZLLARY TALU:<1_&"DISTR1cT.
T, THE TJIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSR'FC;BELLARY DIVISION,
" VTEELLARY.
MR.AEDUT. KHUDDUS,
: MAJOR, S/O ABDUL SALAM,
7 RESIDING AT NOS:/50,
WARD N015, 3% CROSS, MILLARPET,
5959X9’/7’/>’r”(€-7)?)/\/é;-a/~»»::».. .
4. . 5ND: ~ ‘
MFA.NOS.iii86/05
C/W 11187/GS & 11188/05
BELLARY.
{OWNER OF AUTOBEARING NO,KA–34/3412) ,
RESPONDENT,S’=._
[BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADVZFOR _.
R1 TO R3 (R4~–R6 REP. BY R1) ‘
SRIVIJAY KUMAR ADV. FOR R
R-8 SERVED) ..
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER “SEC’TIO’N 2}j’?’?§{i.,}’: OI«~»v”\;§;;.x,f”AcT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND A,wARD’wDAT.ED;I6,.0: .2005 PASSED
IN MVC NO210/2001 ON THE*FIL.E OFATHE, M’EMk3ER.,,,,£i:~MACT,’
BELLARY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OI«*–,RS.,3′,:42;QGo/m WITH
INTEREST 5% PA. FROM THE “DATE OFPETITION TILL ITS
REALISATION. –.
IN M.F.A.N0. 1 1 133 or 2o<")r7 , –. 1'
BETWEEN: '
UNITEDINDIAINS:UR;AINCE,OOf,.LTD_..,V V
BELLARY DO
# 25, SHANKAR.9INA_I~"{AYAN»X BUI.LDINGS,
IvI.G.ROAD, _B.ANG;ALO'RE:5EG_ 001. ' *- — "
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT ;MANAGI:)R
SMT. SIIOBIIA RAJENDRA _IéIsLASA.D'. ' …APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.S.I{OLIwAD'~I«'O'R' .. V
SRI. B.C.SEEfI'HARA'M RAG; ADVOCATE.)
, 'IASRI.GUNITI§¥IAKAL RAJA SAB,
* S'/O PATEL SAB,
. A'B.OUT'49 YEARS,
' . RESIDEN'fT__OF MICIIERI VILLAGE,
BELLA' 'IITALUK &, DISTRICT.
~ THE DIIIISIONAL CONTROLLER,
" 'K-SRTC, BELLARY DIVISION,
I. BELLARY.
MRABDUL KHUDDUS,
V MAJOR S /O ABDUL SALAM,
RESIDING AT No.51,/50,
MFA.NOS.11186/05
C/W 11187/05 8L 11188/O5
WARD NO.1.3, 3*”? CROSS. MILLARPET,
BELLARY.
(OWNER OF AUTO BEARING NO.K.A~34/3412) A
V.
(SRI.Y.LAKSI-IMIKANTH REJDDY, ADVFOR R1
SR1. RAVI V. I-IOSMANI, ADVFOR R2,
R3–SER\/ED) ..
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ‘SI3cfrIoI\I i7.3′(*t_):” Q15 .7iI,Txf’ACT
AGAINST TRE JUDGMENT AND AWARD ‘DA’rED:16.oS,2oc5 I??ASSE)’D
IN MVC NO.275/2001 ON THE VFILE OF’-THE’ HH9~MACTJ,’
BELLARY, AWARDING coMPSNSAT”I.QN oi-T. RS_.;I4,’eoo/M WITH
INTEREST 6% RA. FROM THE DATE; OF PETITION To TILL ITS
REALISATION.
THESE) APPEALS C()”MI’N–G”~Q£§§.ViF0’RA.V:i_A0M_1SSION THIS DAY,
K.N.KESHAVANARAY’ANA.J., D’ELIv,ER:eD.—THE ..}?QL~,t.OWIN G:
JUD–GMENA_:-.”~ T.
I. These t}1f0€3’V.;§tppciatiSV:.by’.fl%IeV,:i1’1S1,1I’8.1’1C{‘3 Company are
directed judgment dated 16.08.2005
passed by Bellary in MVC No.21}/2001,
S 2 I0 /2oo1 and 2V?”E3/1200’ I .
_D’_I’he_V”‘acciider1j.t in question. occurred on account of
collision autorikshaw insured with the appeliant
a b.”u.siA:’be1or1ging to Karnataka State Road Transport
“‘~C;orpora’.tion. In respect of this accident, eight claim
i’:’p.e,t_i.?:ionS were filed. In the accident, two passengers
i
§~2F”A.£\ios.IlE86/£35
C/W 11187/05 8: 11188/OS
travelling in the autorikshaw died and others sustained
injuries. The heirs of the two deceased persons filedclaim
petitions seeking compensation for the de_at’h’-«i.of.:_”tho’se
persons while the injured persons claimed’–<:om'pen'satio11__for
the personal injuries suffered by ffhep.ctl.aim"petitii:ons
were filed against the owner and_ insurer of ?.l'l(§:f\1¥.tQIl..l{Sha\&'i'
as well as the Karnataka State '–ITranspo.rtv.Corporation.
3. The appe1lant–lnsti1*er-. _ llfiintorikshaw contested
the claim petitions.__ interéaiia cloenttendirirgl that as per the
terms of the :_p’olic__y;3eitsV limited to three passengers
onlye as-,such,llit7is».notliableto satisfy the claims of all the
claimants l’l’ial5ipl1ty:l”‘i»srestricted only to three claims.
__£t was.a1so.conten._ded that the accident occurred due to the
7-.soie~.tleg1igenee.regt” the driver of the KSRTC Bus. The
Tribtiiial tori?-assessment of oral as well as documentary
evidence’, the common judgment disposed of all the eight
claimiepgetitions holding that the accident was due to the
–Cfom~posite negligence of the driver of the Autorikshaw as well
driver of the bus. The negligence was apportioned in
/er
MFA.No$.21186/O5
C/W 1587/85 8: 11188/O5
the ratio of 50:50 between these two drivers. The Tribunal
after quantifying the compensation payable in eaeh~wo’f.Vt’hese
cases directed the appellanblnsurance Company.etVo’e-llsatilsfy
the award in each of the cases to the”‘ex.tent \}vhi’leVi’1.1«qei T
remaining 50% should be satisfied_’
app ellan tw In surance Company ‘ qu es ti
respect of three cases lN’os’.b10/2001,
211/2001 and 2’75/2OC)lll.l of other
claim petitions§..hairVe.noieheeri the appellant-
Insurance that awards in all those
cases areless no appeal lies.
4. MFAl’No.*] relates to MVC No.211/2001
while 1 relates to MVC No.210/2001 and
iii’-.M1é*Av.«1xi e. 1.88:/2_OO5 relates to MVC No.2’75 /2001. The first
tvro~.appealeifpeijztain to the cases of death while the third
V appeall”‘1″e1atesllto the case of injury.
have heard Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel
‘:”app_earing for the appellant and perused the records,
I3
MFA.N0s.1l186/O5
C/W 11187/{)5 & 11188/O5
6. Though learned counsel vehemently contended,’ that
the finding of the Tribunal that the accident egithe
composite negligence of both the drivers
perusing the evidence on record,
Tribunal is justified in recofdirlg
appellant–Insurance Company any evidence
to substantiate its was solely
due to the negligence bus. The
1631′ flfid appreciation of
the evidence, the accident was due to
the composite. drivers of both the vehicles.
We find Jisaid finding nor we find any
4._,Vground}€to interfei*e_.yylit’hv:the said finding. In addition to this,
that the appe11ant–Insurance Company has
finding in this regard in respect of other
As such, this finding has become final in
respec-t,,pofiiiother claim petitions. Therefore, the appellant-
Company is estopped from contending that the
a/
M?A.NOS.11186/BS
C/W 1387/05 8: 11188/OS
said finding is erroneous only in respect of these claim
petitions. Therefore, the said contention fails.
7. The other contentions with regard to.
iiabiiity to the extent of three
though the appeliantlnsurance
of objections filed before the”Tri–,buna1′,v.
plea in this regard, it has .ei(idAe§nce either
oral and documentary contention.
In the absence opinion, the
Tribunal is thatithe”appel1ant–Insurance
Cornpanjr is the claim in respect of these
three petitiionstoi 50%. We find no error in the
__said f,1..1_§j’1:idiiJU.I1.g. it noticed from the records of the
tiieu appeflantdnsurance Company has already
siatisi1’edi sigma passed in Mvc Nos.210/2001 823
it 211/ depositing its share of compensation as
the Tribunal and the amount so deposited by the
app’eiiant–insurance Company has already been disbursed to
claimants in terms of the award. The appeI1ant–
{‘3
MFA.%\$<3s.11186/G5
C/W 11187/G5 8: 11188/GS
:10:
Insurance Company having satisfied the award passed in
two cases involving death, it is not open to it to contVen_d;t_Vhat
it is not liable to satisfy the award. Having
above facts, we find no merit in these appe’a1s._:*».fFherefore;u9
the appeals are dismissed. Statutory’;”de3posiffis._.Vif’are
ordered to be transmitted to t’h_e Tiribimai iforii’
disbursement.
‘.
inner:
Jm/~»