United India Insurance Company … vs Smt Pushpalatha on 6 November, 2008

IN THE HIGH COLEKT OF KARNATAKAE AT EANGALORE W.P«Ne.32?4 OF 208'?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATE!) wars mm am on or novmuamz, 

BEFORE  _ L
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PAT§_L=.Vv    %

BETWEEN'.

amen um». msuamce comtwzv um :50'  
DWESKINAL omce NQXI  'V '» . ' ' T -- -'
NQ198 MANJUNATHA commex " -  

2ND moor: cw ROAQ, |NQlRA'NiaGAR  
BANGALORE 33. REF',_B'?'..T1-{E MA}«tAi'.~EE¥?.v ~ A _
REC-IAONAL omce , samK.ARANAt2VAvANA..,  _
BUILDING No.25 M.G.ROAIZ1 BANG'Ai;0RE_ 1* .  . 

' ":_. PETITlGNER

{By Sri : we RA.:.ngc5€:§>AL}§§;if4,_V_Am:2;.§.e.3je)___.-- 1;  ,

1 Sm pusHt»w._An~m - %
WIQKLIMAR .    ~ _
Assn: ABOUT29 EfiaRS~  
RIAT BHJALUR vsm.eu:-- AND posr
DEVANASALLI m,us<._ ~~
EANGALQREV RURAL no

 ..'i'é.He;%¢MoHm"HaEu"'

. V  sam GOPAL REDDY
» _ ~ .,§.<se2o':-mgoa
' V , F<iAT"HQ.Z'57ia$22..
- ._aELLANDiJia'.,ViLLAGE mo POST
BAMGAL-Q'Ȥm=:'37

« V 3 1%-:E"§:ew 'ma ASSURANCE COMPANY no

DW'iS!<3NAL GFHCE i N0.4£1
.. , * LAKSHNB OOMPLBC.
' » "QPP VAN: VILAS HO3PlTAL
*  BANGALORE 2
BY MANAGER

ms: 1=r-zrrmozz no.3274 or 6&5;  f 

Eh? THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Ns'3.32'?4 OF 230?



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAEAT BANGALORE W4F.No.32?4 OF 298?

4 SHR! L KESHAV
MAJOR

szo srfm K.S.LAKSHMlNARAYANA
GANGAMMA TEMPLE smear

KARIYANNA PALYA
ST THOMAS TOWN F' O
BANGALORE 86

(By Sri : ma. srzmsvas PATAVARDHAN, Aevoc:AiE~é=oré*:a1';*  _  

SRHQG, SADASHIVMAH, ABVGCATE FOR R2;?__ _
SR¥.A.K BHAT, AEWOCATE FOR R3; R4 SERVEQ) V

mzswkrr PETiT!0N as men t_._iNBER'ART%CLE"3 .226 Am 22? or-"
"ms consrmmow o1= mom If-FRAYING Aro. ASE me JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DT. 18.7.2006 VIBE ANHEXA. 9.ND'=E3;~_;B'e'~MTHE HONBLE MAST
(sccu-2;, BANGALORE AND TO me.Mss#3':--?ms ¢E:mo:~:V AS AGAINST ms
PETWIONER. -- _ 3 j   ._ 

ms wan PETiT{0N§_C0flfiR\irS 0K£~~.F{.3_R "PRELMINARY HEARING,
11-as BAY, THE cczuamanet me FfJLLQWlNG:' 

Péfitibher is United India Insurance

Company  'v--ré;~rses«Ez-inted by its Manager. Being

 - ._g_gg;r'§fe"i've;fi.:by fi1e ¢dmmvon judgment and award dated 18"'

 in M.V.C.No.5649I2003 an the fite of

the'   Accidents Claims Tribunaf, Bangalore

 petitioner has presented the instant writ

A   oniy in so far as it reiates to fixing the liability on

IN THE RIG}-I COURT Ci}? KARNATAICA ii?' BANGALORE W*P.}§a.33?4 CEF 2667



 
4

claimants were allowed, fixing the liability at t?1evr;a,:.t £-.~..Vt)f

40% on the petitioner --- Insurance Comfiasiy _

directed the Insurance Company: to pg? siaicié '= 

amount. Thereafter, liberty  

.. Insurance Company to r@'}.._(s'xrgf-.r the   = L'

the owner ofthe 

3. st is the mergm   that, there is
no liability at  in respect of
the goods    Therefrxe,
when   Claims Tribunal ought
not to   at the rate of 40% on the

lnsuramge   reserved Iiberty to Insurance

.   racorver the said sum from the

  V Therefore, the impugned judgment and

 1 award  by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the

 law laid down by the Apex Court and this

    in host of judgments. Therefore, petitioner, being

 V  _  ' gggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Nn.3274 OF 2067



IN THE HIGH mun? 0? KARNATAKA '1' BANGALORE w.P.Ne.3m 0:: me?
5

by the Claims Trimnal, only in so far as fixing the 

on the Insurance Company at the rate  _

thereafter to recover the same frefn the   'the; u " 'V 

lorry, 1: constrained to redress  

presenting the instant vwit petifier):

4. I have heard.   for
pefitioner -- Insurance  counsel for
respondents. Aliifiee "and some are
represented;       

5% ~    judgment and award
passed  'what emerges is that; the

Claim  sfiaeeifically referred at paragraph 24

   learned counsel for Insurance

  mat, the poncy is in mpmt of

j  _theAguodsjcefrier and it is insured only for the purpose of

  but the vehicle has been used far

 the pamngys and therefore, there is clear

  "'--mvrit:s'lation en the part of the avmer. It has come in the

/éaw

IN THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT' BANGALORE W1'-'.No.32'?»4 OF 200?



IN 1112 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.Ne.32'?4 0? 209':
6

evidence that the ciaimants were travelling in me" 

qumtion in order to visit the temple.  
contention of the insurance u "= 
discarded. When thare is 
conditions of the ggsscg, it is    %

$1 the cafiensation.     at
paragraph 25 0? its   in View of
me law said am, the  has to pay
compensatiqny    has to
recover   of the lorry mating
No. through tha reasoning
given iby   'fiébunal at paragraph 24, it

    has specificafly recorded a

 of the oral and documentary

  evidéfise Qfter appreciating the stand taken by the

'WH':  '§fi§ur:3fccé"'Cmnpany that, there is no iiability an the

 ".'1§;§1's';":;tV§?§a"r1?c::e Campany, but in the very next paragraph, the

  'J » . _   Tribune}, ptacing reliance on the judgment of the

/4i<--«

IN THE HIGH CQURT 01*' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.PNe'3.32'7-vi OF 2907



    his autherized r

A l;,_ wide for tha iiabif

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32'?4 OF 2007

'.1

Apex Court and this Court, has issued the direction that,

the insurance Campany has to pay its 
compensatioh and than recover the same   
of the lorry. The said direcfioh;   ht" 
cannot be accepted nor the   ._

reason that, the Horfbie catsa. - Vvkvh'-._:ai5...N*atid:nal " L'

Insurance Company.   t V' * L. _ 2 Vs; ' .  

Subbhayamma and omm  ACJ 721, t

has held that;  as,  in spite cf
the   of the provision
  to persons other
man flxtt-. "goods or his authorized
' V . A : Atthgh the owner

esentative would now

reprg$entative"»rgfhainé the same.

 

. mlicg of insurance in rgect of 3

 véhicité it was not the intention of the I isiature to

 

of the insurer with r to

 

---wunuu-n

ratuitotm ers who were

/éhw

iai!

 

IN  HEGE COURT 0!' K_="BL'3AT2%.!Z"; LE'? BAN(3Al,-ORB '3v';?=!'3f3=33?4 OF 20!}?



IN THE HIGH COURT GF K.ARNATAKA3AT QANGALORE W.P.Ne.32'.?4 OF 200?

neifixer contemgtated at the time the confiact cf
insurance was entered into nor, any p_remium was paid to

fine extent of the______t;eneft of the ln%nceA tee 

categgy of p_e_qQIe." (emphasis supplied).   '%

7, Further, in one of latest 

Court, in the case of Natiopal in;s.i}rancrev"v*%A:;'c§{;épe;n}}'e .

Limited Vs- Premadevi and others  in (2903) 5
Supreme com Cases .é;e4o:£?   tlfieh  has held
that, " The inevituablee""ceht;!£1eign;  i§ that
Drovisic_;_e;:;§"'cf".V.t:fV2pe  Aeriieirifiv anv statutgy liabiim
on the am at twp his vehagse Eneured for

any Q3 .$@"'er_"iravelii{1g. "in a goods' carriage and the

 V' "Ensure? wouid hgfiewfao iiabif therefor." (emphasis

 View was expressed by me Apex

  % Cozmafier referring to the three judge bench decision of

' " " 'T   Court, as follows:

" 11. Our View gets support from a
recent decision of a three-judge bench 01' this

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE W.P.}«éo.32?4 OF 269'?



IN THE HIGH COURT or TAKA AT BANGALORE W-F.No3 '34 OF 200':
9

Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Ashe Rani in which it has been held that
Satpal Sing!) Case was not correctly decided. 

That beigg the msition, the Tribunai and me
High Court we____t__'g not iusfified in  j Lf   _

_g_h__g insurer had thg Iigbiiitv to  mg  T    ,  

gvggrmd. " (emphasis suppiiedf

Therefore, if the ratio pf faw   "

Court, in the aforesaid knto
consideration coupiad   gi~}érV: v by the

c:aims Tfibun§:%   at in judgment and

award, ! am  af that-:4'  View that, the View taken

_ by  Ciaimsg Tri:§u ha!flthét, the Insurance Company has

 v*th5e.L:A.firv§5f;i"~--i:jstance pay and thereafter recover the

 of the vehicie, is contrary to me

tyveil   faid dawn by the Apex Court and hence,

*  3 ciirection ought not to have been issued by me

  Ciaiflxs Tribunal. Hence, same is unsustainabie and is

V  ' . 1' "  fizerefore, liable to be set aside at me threshold itself.

 

%

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KART-IATAKA AT BANGALORE W'.P.No.32'F'4 OF 2007



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32?4 OF 200?
30

8. Further, it is significant to note that, in the terms

and conditions of the policy in respect of " 

vehicles, it is stated in a crystal clear mannerv:A'i'i5aTt,A..jtti¢ei'e"ii  

is no liability on the part of the  

respect to gratuitous passengers travelling in i

and mat, the liability is only on_v:fi1e_c\;grner'asndV':notFon the
ineurer. Therefore, takiniginto thwe relevant
factors into corieiderationf lifarri «opinion that, the

impugned   by me Claims

.mblm§1reia:a to fixing flue liability

on the at the rate of 40% and

tl1ereeftertc"i=ec:o~1er   from the owner of the lorry

 «bearing  cannot be sustained and

'2'iaence:_]ie liable to be set aside.

A  9.   light of the foam and circumstances of

   writ petition filed by petitioner is disposed of

aside that portion of me impugned judgment and

 'iiftivrard passed by the Claims Tribunal, relating to only

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32'?4 O? 203'?



IN THE HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.No.32?4 OF 200?
ii

fixing the liability on the Insurance Cempany at 40%»:.émd

thereafter rmerving liberty to them to recover_ ;€':":e'.j" 

from the owner of the lorry. Thus, in.' 

aforesaid judgments of the Apex  it  

respect of goods carriage    
liable and that, the  seam to
compensate in respecf ésfxfiwe 

10. with    filed by
petitioner stan:§£sV    'emount stated to

have been   before

the Court is agreed   imnedidtety.

 .....  

Iudge

mite more cam OFKARNKEAKAAT BANeA1,eRew.pr~:u_32:4 ex: :03: