{"id":149383,"date":"2008-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-24T02:09:59","modified_gmt":"2018-05-23T20:39:59","slug":"chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Chidananda Ullal Gowda<\/div>\n
THE HOl\\|'BLE MR. JUSTECE::'\u20acHI\ufb01A_N\ufb01N\ufb013\u00a7!JI:\ufb01\ufb01L  5\n\n' ~...AN|) -._ \n\nTHE I-lON'BI.E MR. Jus1jeEA.N.vEn u\u00e9onALA eowon\n\n \n\n   \n\nIln\u00e9-ulnnn :\n\nNati6fia.i_ Ire5;i'ra\ufb01c\u00e9'  i..td.,\n\u00a7-iuh_l.l Braimlj 'Office.\n1*hrz5ju'h~.qts aegum office,\nNo--\u00bb..144',\u00ab.S'ubharam Complex,\n\n!\\!!.\u00a3.\"-.'=?r.$ar*;- .33-'-galcre-1.\n\nR212; \"z:r.v}its Administrative Of\ufb01cer\nS1-i.'V!.<.K. Mamk.\n\n "  Appellant\n(By Sri. B..C. Seetharama Rae, Adv.,)\n\nAnnual:\n\n1 Sri. Shekhappa,\nAged about 24 years,\nS\/0 Shlvappa Chlgadolll,\nR,\/a Byahatti,\n-Now r\/at Saundattl,\n\n\n\nSaundattl Taluk,\nBelgaum District.\n\n2. Smt. Meharunnlsa,\nMajor, W\/'o Sayyadsab Dociawad,\nKhandarl Manjli, Patll Galll," '\nYellapur, Hubli. \n\n(owner cf the Truck. Lyearlrf'   "\n\n(R1 8: R2 Served)\n\nThis Appeai is ;_f|ied..und\u00a7r*=..ss.\u00a7ct!on 173(1) of MV Act\nagainst the.judgme-ant_and..award.dated 2!11;.2_00.2 passed in\nMVC Nq.23a4f-2000 prj',~'chV\u00e9~.."f!l_e' cafthe Member, AMACT,\nSau\ufb01da\ufb01i, \u00a7?'a;'ir_r'ur*r.Vi'~',*r'. ';_aii0vfing" "'th'e ciaim patiticn for\ncompensa_tloi:".*I;_   '\n\n cn%oB5riziz\u00e9anjjabaa .   \n\nS\ufb01r S-i'z.a;=2i<r1ar:_'a,*._ " \n\ngs\/Q Shlvappa'Chl'gado||i,\n "eAg_ed about"'24...yaars,\n_  Rf-ai' Byahattl,\n " -V . Nowvrfat' saundatti,\n Samzdatt\u00e9.,Ta!u.'_.!\".i 't\u00a7'_ie f'i_!e of the civil Judge\n(sr,Dn=) 5; Memberv,V-A!*d.ACT,'ieSunde\ufb01\u00e9i, partiy aiiewing the\nclaim petltieii for \u00e9:ompei1seti'o'ii~ahdfseeking enhancement of\n\ncamperieatiegezi;  .\nIn.ivHFA'v.V.53r5.\u00a7f;f206$'-  \"\n\nNati6ir3a\"l iInsu_re'ii\u00a2eV_'(:o_,} Ltd.,\niii ew Cot-tori i'viejri<et, ' \u00ab  ~~\n\nHuhii Bram:_h." "\n\n_ " 'i~1\u20ac'hroug%he..i%ts Regi\u00e9iiai orrice,\n --.No--i144;\u00abvi.SLibharam Complex,\n\n2 NI  ':!n2rI"~_ D.~nnna.lA|-e=1-\n\n.-I'u.luv.-I, .I,rJ'GlIyI'illUl\n\nX '~-.__Rep; fi'tS Administrative Cf\ufb01cer\n\nAA '*-(iByNSri. seethereme Ree, .I-\\.r_h.:.,)\n\nsmt. D. Karthika.\n- "  Appellant\n\n' Ana.\n\n1. Kurnari 'fashoda,\nAged about 12 years,\nBeing minor rep. by her father 8:\nNature! guardian\nJagadl Yeliappa Shamarayanavara,\n\n\n\n' I:\n\nWe Katti Oni, Saundatti,\nBelgaum District.\n\n2. Smt. Main.-nnise,\n\nW\/o Sayyecl Sat: Daciwacl,   \nAged abnut \u00ab10 years,   j; 4'\nR\/o Khadrl Manjii, Patll Galili,  '\nYellapur Road, Hubll.; _  \n(Owner of the Truck)   "\n\n(By Sri. G.R. csuruijiath,i'Adlyt;,nlrq&gl'gR1) ' '\n\nThls4A'p.peali"is'i"il~ed_'u.n\u00bbderA-Section 173(1) of MV Act\nagainst the judgment a'nd"award..cl.ated 20.4.2005 passed in\nMVC No.i72.'3_\/2001'.pi:--,the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &\nAdcil. 3'   S.4..='-"-.1ijec'.atti; l"\u00bb;.=.*war ng cornpenset n of\nRs,..1.,3_5;\u00a3lO'0}'--~:;:._with"futu're..,ln_terest at 8% p.a. and directing\ntitle appellant i'i_eI'ein\u00ab.t'o deposit the same.\n\nMm.ile;e';g:'ele;s7t.nv i\n\ndin\n\n  'elte.l'NatA:tona_I Insurance co., Ltd.,\nV .. _ Hubll Sr'a~--n_Ci'u ('Jffice-.\n\n. "'l.--._ViThi*g\ufb01'gg.h'V~ltsV..ReglonaI Office,\nA  Nei1.4\u00a2i~,._. Subherem Complex,\n M.\u20ac_.R0'ad, Bangalore-1.\n\n A g_ Reg: by its Administrative Officer\nx _'  K.K. Maliik.\n\n Appellant\n(By Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Aclv.,) '\nAnd;\n\n1. Sri. Chldambar,\n\nAged about 27years,\nS\/o Gangappa Horakerl,\n\n\n\nLI!\n\n2. Sr}. Bhlmappa, Major,\nS\/o Garnappa Horakeri,\n\nBoth are r\/a Pattadakal Onl,    _~\nR\/at Saundatti, Belgeum District; "  \n\n3. Srrat. Meharurmrsa, _  \nMajor, W\/0 Syed Sab' Deqawad, .\nKhandari ivianjii, Patli G'a]II,\u00bb "\nYellapur, Hubli.__ \n\nRespondents\nIn" 9...: I .--u-----.--.. -1- Im\u00a2--,,..:..;,_.;.~,-:~.b    A ---- ---- --\nuay :.m. |..d.KH~}\u00a2lll I :E\u00b0ldI'iI_\ufb02vQilI1l', GV_.,.V or H1 19. K4, K5 served)\n\n l'sir'j'.-fired v1':j'u\ufb01r1er'SectIon 173(1) of MV Act\nagainst the judgrnent"an:l____aw\u00e9\u00a7rd dated 2.11.2002 passed in\nM\u00a7iC%"'r'i4e.,.?,35!?-'.3{!I:.*'gee-rs the""\ufb02!e of the Member, AMACT,\nSa--.undatt\u00a7,"7',~\u00abpv\u00e9'rt\u00a7y\u00ab-._ "aliewing the claim petition for\n\ncar :pensatiom  u\n\n(in time 1%2'r3;eso3\n\n 1. "'a".;'"%*:.i;:ia'Vrf'r's'::a"izr,\n\nS\/cei\ufb01cingappa Horakeri,\n..__A'g'e:" 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,\n\n" .. R10. Saundatti, Pattadakell -- om,\n\nsaundattu Taluk,Be|gaum Dlstrlct.\n\nV'   Bhlrnappa,\n\nS\/'0 Gangappa Horakeri,\n\nAge: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,\nR\/o Saundattl, Pattadakall -- Onl,\nSaundett! Telulgaelgeem Lrlstrlct.\n\n(By Sri. Laxman T Mantaganl, Adv.,)\n\n\n\n(ZN\n\nAudi\n\n1. National Insurance Co., Ltd.,\nHubii Branch offlce. \nThrough its Regional Office, .. .\nNo.144, Subharam Complex, \nM.G.Road, Bengatoreel. ..   " '\nRepresented by its D\u00a5vl's.I_onaI Manatger, \n\n3. Smt. Mahlrunisa, \nMajor, Occ: Truck owner," _' V \nR\/o Khandarl M'a.njll_, ;?at\u00a7j_i' \u00a7\u00a7a;'\u00e9!!j,.~  \nYellapur, Hubil.   * . \n\n Respondents\n\n(By SrE'.'B.C.  for R1)\n\n This v<:rose.,ob3.e'ctl_on is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of\nCFC: ege\u00e9nst~.,theo\u00bb..3ue:';,gment and award dated 2.11.2602\npassed In MVt:fNo;'235\/2000 onthe file of the Member,\nAn'viACT,-,,Svaundatti,*.partiy aiiowlng the claim petition for\ne;orn,pensation' andseeklng enhancement of compensation.\n\n4i\\iatVio.nal\ufb01 Insurance Co._, Ltd._.\n\n _ _ Hubuolvisuon.\n\nV  frnrough Its Regional office,\n\nNo.14-'e, Subhararn Cornpiex,\n\nM.G.Road, Bangalore-1.\n\nRep. by its Administrative Officer\nSr}. K.K. Mamk.\n\n Anoeiiant\n(By Srl. B.C. Seetharama Rao, Adv.,)\n\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Smt. Basawwa, Major,\n'N\/o Fak\u00e9rappa Jaw\ufb01er,\nR\/o Ayatti, Navaiagun Taiu\u00a7a:,""' .\nDharward District.  ~\n\n2. Smt. Mairunnissa, _ ._\nMajor, W,\/e Seyyedseb\u00ab,.Drsr\u00a3a'*'edw\nR\/o Patii Galii, V'\n'feiiapur,    _  \nTaiuk: Hubii, Di.-.;t';~: D'ruai';*.'ad~..__'\u00bb.,, \n\n Respendente\n\n(By Sri. Lexrrjan T \n\nTi1is\u00abii_Appeai'is'f'iied""und;er Section 173(1) of MV Act\nage!--nst_the J{:'d_gm'eni'._and"-award dated 2.11.2002 passed In\nMVC N_6;1"-\u00a7.0\u00a7j'?2OGQ"'~\u00ab9_n _t_he \ufb01le of the Member, AMACT,\nSaundatti, 'p-arrtiyv "\u00bb___ai!owim_;_I the claim petition for\ncompensation.'    \n\n  7313x2304\n\n'n...da.-........;..,\n\n_ d~rirrsi\u00e9tr:\u00a25'r:ai insurance co., Ltd.,\nA V i~iew_Cotto"n Market, Hubii Branch.\n\nThrecagh its Regienei Office,\n\n ..  No.'144, Subhararn Complex,\n\n'M. --.Road, Bangaiore-1.\n\nRep. by its Administrative Officer\nSmt. D. Karthlka.\n Appeiiant\n\n(Bv Sri B C se_tha.rema Ree, Ad\\.I.,}\nl..__l=\n\n\n\n1. smt. Shantawwa,\nAge: 42 years,\n\nW\/o Basappa Kambar,\n\n2. Srl. Manjunatha Basappa Keh3b\u00abar,  ]\nAged about 25 years,   be?  '\n\nBoth are r\/o Ammlnabhavh, _\n\nTeluk: Dharwed, Diet: Dherwed.\n\n3. Srr1t.Armepurn~a, \nAged about 24--.yeu~3rs,_   \nW\/o Hanamanthappa 'TyapI,__   " \nR\/a Yadravl, .. = V ' "  "\n\nTaluk:_ Sieu.nda'tti, _:D_I:et.::VBeig_aum. \n\n4. Ab\u00a7J'ui""E\u00bb.a\u00a7seh!i_f_,_ .Vp1'a.j'r_)i.'.;".   "\nS\/o..Da..veiVsab Mruigvundy 3\n Qrlvtecg' r\/oI;Java.!|g--a||I, Gedag.\n\n5. E5-m't,Ma!runh--:sa";A.._  "\nM339.-', ..W','c._ $3-\ufb02ed sat': Dcadawad,\n\n' ~ R\/a Ke,dr'i~Manzi|, Patil Galll,\n'v'aiiapur"--Ro_e_d, Hubii, Dist; Dharwad.\n\nV  E\u00bb*A"(0wn'er of the Truck bearing No.MEw-7045)\n\nH '-   Kirtiagaraj for R5, R2 served)\n\n"  This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act\n\n " 'tgagainst the judgment and award dated 3.7.2004 passed in\n MVC No.265\/2000 on the \ufb01le of the Clvil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 81\n\nMember, AMAIJ, Seundetti, pert" allowed with cost.\n\nAwarding compensation of Rs.3,23,'013'0\/- with Interest at 6%\n\npa.\n\n\n\n.\n<\/pre>\n
-Ir<\/p>\n
“{By,.._’S’ri-.0\u00a7\u20ac5A.R. Gurumath, Adv., for R1)<\/p>\n
‘:13<\/p>\n
National Insurance Co._, Ltd._,
\nNew Cotton Market, Hubil Bran_r:h.__<\/p>\n
Through its Regional Office,
\ni\\io.144, Subhararn Com\ufb01iex,<\/p>\n
M.G.Road, Bangalore-1.’  <\/p>\n
Rep. by its AdministrativeV_Qi’iicer’VV<\/p>\n
Smt. D. Karthika. .   Vt   V <\/p>\n
(By sn. B.C. Seethararne nag, Adu”. <\/p>\n
1. Sri. iY\u00e9Ii.apt5’\u00e9’ 3’Rarn*af’ps5av..SA:no:i{1aVreyeonevarei
\nAg_ed”‘~ab’ou:t..65 years,”  ‘<\/p>\n
em; Katti 0\u00a7\u00e9’i;’Sa’d.{io’atti_,”””V
\nr.__Be_iga un1.to0:tAstriTctttk ‘  ._ ‘<\/p>\n
2. sm; Mairunni.se:..,’:””‘–
\n_ W\/o”‘5a’yyed Sab ‘Badwad,
\n” Aged about 40 ‘-years,<\/p>\n
 ER\/c.._i(hacii*i’ ‘a’~*.–s\u00abn’ziI, Patli Galii,<\/p>\n
WI * 1.: ml
\n“u R\ufb01ad, HUMII.\n<\/p>\n
0′ ‘  _ ‘*(.(_.’)w’nwe_r of the Truck)<\/p>\n
 Respondents<\/p>\n
This App-eai is fiieci under Section 173(1) of I’vi’v’ Act<\/p>\n
 sigainst the judgment and award dated 20.4.2005 passed in<\/p>\n
I’v’I’v’C No.17?-V2001 on the \ufb02ie of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &
\nAMACT, Saundatti, awarding compensation of Rs.3_,85_.000,\/-
\nwith future interest at 8% p.a. and directing the appellant<\/p>\n
herein to deposit the same.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
In MFA 5356\/20!) 5-‘<\/p>\n
Esiwa-ma<\/p>\n
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,<\/p>\n
New Cotton Market, Hubli Branch.<\/p>\n
Through its Reg onal Office, <\/p>\n
No.1-44, Subharam Complex, ”\n<\/p>\n
iV’I.G.Road, Bangalore-1.’; ._<\/p>\n
Rep. by I 5 Administrative ‘Officer<\/p>\n
 t. . _ _   Appellant
\n(33; Sri. B.C. Se-thai’ar”na’~Ra~o,; Adm)
\nAged at:-‘mt 53 yeah}. ‘  .\n<\/p>\n
_W[o_ Ba\u00e9avanptappa__Hosakerl;\n<\/p>\n
2.:*Sril Anna~pp.a,’~Ma3.or;.. ‘ t
\n3\/0 BasevVan.tapp–aA_ Hoea kerl,
\nBoth are r\/do wNarei’adfa’,
\n, .’_;\u00a5’aluol<. 8-. Dlst..Dhan~vad.
\nA  3. _Smt–,4vA'iv?.ehrunnisa,
\n" T. _'Major,\u00bba.V\\g'!o sayyed sab Dadwad,
\n'\u00ab,\/'o.Kh;a'drI Manzll, Patll Galll,
\n Yellagzur Road, Hubll,
\n {Owner of the Truck)
\n" 'I. Respondenta
\n . _ decay Sri. jacigisn Ptii, Adv., for R1 a R2)
\nThis Appeal Is flied under sectlon 1173(1) of .-.V Act<\/p>\n
against the judgment and award dated 20.4.2005 passed in
\nl'-WC No.1394\/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (S"."n.) 8:.<\/p>\n
F
\nAMACT, Saundatti, awarding compensation of Rs.2,41,000\/-<\/p>\n
('MN <\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
with future Interest at 6\u00b0.\/; p,a_, and directing V.t1ne’i~appe!!ant
\nherein to deposit the same. ” ‘ ”<\/p>\n
In MFA 5358\/2005
\n\ufb01gt\ufb02m<\/p>\n
National Insurance Co., \u00a3;tcL,<\/p>\n
Iu_… .1–.u.__ lhI__._I.-_I. I,I..I_l:’.1’J_’n’…-,|.
\nIVBW K…-ULI.Ull IVIGIKEL, FIUUII Dpl\ufb01lblkli.<\/p>\n
Through its RegIon:’ai_OfFI\u00a2:\u00e9,” =  <\/p>\n
No.144, Subharam*~\u00ab.C)omp_le):_,V, ” ‘<\/p>\n
M.G.Road, Bangalore-.1’. ” ”\n<\/p>\n
Rep. by itsindmlniistratlye Qffifcer ‘ <\/p>\n
Sr\ufb01t. D’._Vi\u20ac.ar”t\u00a7*1’aii’i<a..V  ' __
\n          Appellant<\/p>\n
(By Sri .–..B'.C.:jSeef:harama 'Rao,f.Adv.,.)<\/p>\n
An_\u00a3li__ <\/p>\n
1. Sri. ‘Naganago*Lud’a\u00ab.,p  ”
\nAged about years,
\n‘ ~ S\/o Giriyap’pag’ouda Baianagouder,
\n :BfaVv%Shiru’i;… _____
\n“Ta|u3<.;_ Navalagund, DIst.: Dharwad.<\/p>\n
.- -iS':-..!_." \u20ac9[.is,,i~'Dod\u00bb*ead, Major,
\nR\/'o'tj;Pai:ii Galli, Ye iapur ni,\n<\/p>\n
-_ ,Hub\ufb02.\n<\/p>\n
,. “(owner of truck)<\/p>\n
 Respondents<\/p>\n
N = . Kay Srl. H.M. Dharlgond, Adv., for R1)<\/p>\n
This Appeai is fiieci under Section 173(1) of iviv Act
\nagainst the judgment and award dated 19.3.2005 passed in
\nMVC No.1239\/2000 on the me of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &<\/p>\n
Rs 3,2<\/p>\n
AMACT, Saundatti, awarding compensation of . ,3?5,\/-<\/p>\n
wlth future interest at 8% r:\u00bb.a. and direc:im_”tn_’e.eppeiiant<\/p>\n
herein to deposit the same.\n<\/p>\n
These eppeele eh. ‘ebj’e.tleh_e’*.h.ayll)gvi’ been
\nreserved, VENUGOPALA GQWTDA, $5,, ” _deiive’red-,. th
\nf’iiowi\ufb01g:     ‘   <\/p>\n
 J U otfftzrvieait\ufb02 1%  <\/p>\n
Claim’.pftitiohe’–were
\non   travelling along with
\n vHubii in Truck bearing No.
\n  the truck drove the vehicle in high<\/p>\n
speedand inV.n’egiige’h:t”rhanner and while overtaking another<\/p>\n
_’ye’i~.l.<.:ie,  vehicle to a stone wall of the bridge on the<\/p>\n
-1″.\n<\/p>\n
.!gh’t  of the reed, accident teok place, reeultlhg in the
\n‘ bodvil’y._’rijgirlvevfatai ‘”u’uriee. Cornpenea”oh was claimed on<\/p>\n
A “-4._acc.o’un.t\u00a7*of the bodily injuries\/fatal Injuries.<\/p>\n
  The claim petitions were resisted by the appellant —<\/p>\n
Insurance Co. by filing statement of objections, denying the<\/p>\n
allegations made in the petition w h regard :9 thg gaiasg cf<\/p>\n
injured\/deceased persons were unauthorised_\u00a2.perse.ns in th<\/p>\n
fl)<\/p>\n
vehicle, that though there was a policy..i\u00a7ssuedj~eyf–it}ther<\/p>\n
was vioiation of terms and conditions.o’f”theVv insurance “poii’cy<\/p>\n
by the driver and owner of the :fJe’hic’i’e._a-nd’- h’e’n-ce;A::iatA is n’ot\u00ab:<\/p>\n
liable to pay the cornpen’setion.V” Ari” appiric’at.ijo.n_:V\\Na.’s  by it
\nunder Sec. 170 of the’vi’Ar;t,,_seeki’n.p_:fperimission of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, which wes”jai_iowee,.1e’n.d\u00bbtheeppeilant\/insurance Co.<\/p>\n
was permitted to   eii the grounds, if<\/p>\n
the owner  V-h.e’~.vehicie_ faii’-sto”‘ contest; Owner of the<\/p>\n
5″\n<\/p>\n
vehicie..hashot ucocniesctzedj the gem petitions.<\/p>\n
3. A”__8aysed.._.’o–hA’–it\u00e9h—e’:p”‘pieadings, issues were framed and<\/p>\n
genquiry’wvas”.\u00b0hei’d  which the claimants\/petitioners have<\/p>\n
 deposed, apartwfrom examining witnesses. The appeiiant –<\/p>\n
– Ihs=’\u00abte”hce_.t:o. hes examined or-e o<\/p>\n
I’h’1′ f’\\-FFI
\nI I Ina \\.r<\/p>\n
A  tne copy of the Insurance poiicy. Eonsidering the<\/p>\n
T record, relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the<\/p>\n
it  jfcase of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. vs. SATPAL SINGH<\/a><\/p>\n
reported in 2001(SC) 227 and RAMESH KUMAR vs.
\nNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,<\/a> reported in ILR 2002 Kar.
\n870, the Tribunal has eccepted the claim petitions -and the<\/p>\n
la<\/p>\n
‘ar<\/p>\n
concerned vehlsle being a goods vehicie, it5-‘rotil~\ufb01j’*r_oit’.have to<\/p>\n
incur any liability in respect of the passengers'”tra’nVsportedin<\/p>\n
the vehicle, has been rejected.  uoornp’en’set’:so\u00abn~sAzpayabisA<\/p>\n
has been assessed and sep.arate”e,_viiards rIna%2e.beerl passed.<\/p>\n
4. Being aggrieifed, 1’the_Vlinsurraru;e Co. has filed these<\/p>\n
appeals. Since common g.ue_sti’o’n Vow-e’cts and law arise .or
\nconslders_tl9ni,t\u00bbr’ t..e:’–act:_lo”ent’ heing”cornrnoh, the appeals were<\/p>\n
heard  lsnaftaie .bei’ngv’V:tiiVsposed off by this Judgment.
\nFor ifse’ite_pVV_ofV’%convenlenee, the parties will be referred to<\/p>\n
with reference’  in the claim petitions before the<\/p>\n
Trlbpnalil  <\/p>\n
5 Sr! IE.-‘C.See.harame “as, learned Counsel appearing
\nA -..or the”appeliartiihsurance Co., contended that the Tribunal<\/p>\n
haspeommitted error of law and facts in making the insurer<\/p>\n
 v .._”iAl..abIe to satisfy the awards made in respect of passengers in<\/p>\n
the goods vehicle, by relying upon the decisions in the case
\nof NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. vs. SATPAL SINGH,<\/a> reported<\/p>\n
In 2001 SCC 23? and RAMESH KLJMAR. Vsl NATIONAL<\/p>\n
‘\\<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
.-\n<\/p>\n
msumwcs co. LTD, reported in mi 2002 :-(‘age-%;f’nn8rgj7’*oa, whlch<\/p>\n
are not good law In vlew of the Iarger Be4n:chVAdf’_the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court, ivn~st.h.e <\/p>\n
ASSURANCE co. LTD. vs. ASHARANI, tropes-tteo ~\u00e9%n~\u00abArR_2oo3<\/p>\n
SC 607; He further contended that,’the.:u’eh’I’ciVe question
\nwh!c.h. had already.beenV_!eadsd”–~w!th.actions (200 be
\nCement covered  were 26 passengers
\nwho were4r;t’ra..VeI|:;’A;’i’9\u00a7”[‘hi t.he.’i\\ve.g51;.rr1e:..rV’rrehlcle, who had not
\nengaged ‘:l:o_r_r;4.’fo.r i;ran_sgo’rtIng vegetabres, etc. He
\ncont.end”ed” that_ \u00ab’.the.}owner of the goods or his<\/p>\n
auathorlsedu’r’egreseneta’tIve; none else is covered under the<\/p>\n
A  _ ‘r.een.d.ivsmi__ssed against the insurer on the ground that unless<\/p>\n
‘f__tAhV\u00e9 :’g_oodVs”‘VuehIcie was engaged by a person for transporting<\/p>\n
“””hIs\u00abV:godds from one destlnatlon to another, the risk of such<\/p>\n
V * ovrner or his authorised representative is not covered under<\/p>\n
 “the Act. Merely because passengers have boarded the goods<\/p>\n
IC
\nID
\nE
\n1<\/span>
\nD
\nP.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n3<\/span>
\nII3
\n\u00a7.\n<\/p>\n
I’!-\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
\n1′!’
\n5<\/span>
\nis
\n‘S
\nI7
\nIi!
\nll}
\nI’ll!
\nID
\nID
\nID
\n2<\/span>
\nII
\n3<\/span>
\n<
\n('P
\n3'
\n(D\n<\/p>\n
-<
\n['3
\nII?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n3<\/span>
\n(3
\n(“P
\n13′
\n(D<\/p>\n
u… A . A 4 . . ….4……. .5′ .. ..<\/p>\n
1…… A _ _ LL… ..–.I.._ .1.
\nLEITIIEU 63 owners 01 Ule QUUUS Er<\/p>\n
Q}!
\n<
\nEL
\n:1?\n<\/p>\n
(D2
\n5:’
\nHI-\n<\/p>\n
If
\nmr
\n\u20ac’ Dyerrnittted Vaajaownewre ‘or<\/p>\n
the goods and none of the persons’  J<\/p>\n
petitions, ciaimed to be –t_h’eV_%owner__of_20_0″~.i\u00a7a’gs “of cement,
\nw’r’ch was heirg,tranapo\ufb02ad”‘–~.from factory. He<\/p>\n
[-1<\/p>\n
contended that the’  to consider EXS. F.
\nand 9.2, yadrnittegzdwtV’i’n:;eyidence;-  that the petitioners
\n and contend that, the
\ncovntenyte~wtheaaof  ‘oee_n} proved. He placed reliance on
\nthe deciveivonfjojf  Court in the case of ORIENTAL<\/p>\n
1iisuoaAncE’co.y  vs. PREMLATA Si-iLJ.K.LA. AND omens,<\/p>\n
\u00bb\u00bb’-:.:re:|;forted (3) T.A.C. 11 {s.c.) contended that, the
\n  Exs. 53.1 and P.2 relied upon by the parties shouid
\n ioioi<e.d"Vinto in fuii and not on a part of it, as has been
\n  the Tribunal, whiie passing the impugned judgments<\/p>\n
V A'  awards. He contended that the findings of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
it are perverse and consequentiy, the awards impugned in<\/p>\n
these appeaia passed again.-at t..e appellant as iiabie to be set
\naside. is
\n\/<\/p>\n
Kt<\/p>\n
Jagadish Patii, Malilkarjun andmothers,""cvontended_ that;,the<\/p>\n
petitioners have established t.hat;fth.e itnjurad\/deceased' were–:<\/p>\n
travelling in the vehicles-n_ S-V1'-2601 w<nen;.theWaccident\u00bb has
\noccurred, to be the owners_l:'of:the_ goodsl_i:ivl<e potatoes, onions<\/p>\n
and other itemsgwalridt conjseduen.ti*_y,_ the Insurance Co. is
\nCounsel l?;ont\u00a7t}en.ded.th-salt.  the depositions of the petitioners
\nand other—-witnesses'-exarninedVin the Tribunal, it has been
\nes_tabil.shed,Vt.h_ati the""i-njured\/deceased were transporting food<\/p>\n
grain.gbargs\/vegjetatiies; 'etc. in the offended lorry, at the time<\/p>\n
gger agccidentand thatzthey were travelling with their respective<\/p>\n
 go'o:ds_V"ehd therefore, they could not he termed as gracious<\/p>\n
.e-rs'. Learned Cdunsel cont<\/p>\n
 wejs'j-dstified in relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court<\/p>\n
 ..  iznvvthe cases of SATPAL SINGH and RAMESH KUMAR (supra).<\/p>\n
.f"Learned Counsel, also contended that the appellant has<\/p>\n
satis\ufb01ed the award passed in MVC No.2278\/2000 dt. 15-2-
\n2002, arising out of the same accident in which the Tribunal<\/p>\n
had fixed the iiebii..y on t..e eppeiient herein end hence, it is<\/p>\n
.'\/,.\n<\/p>\n
,,ia,riiI.;r-aalsici’-ass obiections, \ufb02ied by the p<\/p>\n
Learned Counsel contended that In view of4″satI’si’\u00a7Irjr:\u00a7,i said<\/p>\n
award, the appellant is estopp.ed__4frorn'”a’ye’idi’n’g,’_iiabi,iVity,,<\/p>\n
respect of the awards passed by the in”f:aovo’Uvrjof the ”<\/p>\n
petitioners. Learned’  ‘\ufb01tounisei  conten;_’ived,,.  that  ‘the<\/p>\n
appeais,\/cross objections_…:VVri\u00bbi.edVw.,_,  “the, ‘petitioners for<\/p>\n
 s. . –\n<\/p>\n
Tribunai has’faiied,t’o”q–:iant’iry-.theVmfrspiensation properiy an<\/p>\n
pass the  Learned Counsel made
\n   award, in so far as
\nfhd;-.g._the;’i*%st>i:Iii’ty,’on:’:i:he appellant and directing it to satisfy
\ntheiiawlardvs  submissions for allowing of the<\/p>\n
titioners.\n<\/p>\n
u ; u  J<\/p>\n
 :””‘_~(_:_on:sidering the rival contentions as above and the<\/p>\n
“‘=rec.ordv’rnaintained by the Tribunal, the question that arises<\/p>\n
 .. ,__for”’eonsideration in this batch of appeals is, “whether the<\/p>\n
V'”~”i’ribunai was Justified in fastening the iiabiiity on the<\/p>\n
appellant to satisfy the awards, and whether the<\/p>\n
appeaislcross objections \ufb02ied by the ,o..titioners have any<\/p>\n
\\\\<\/p>\n
CD\n<\/p>\n
-I
\n5′<\/p>\n
record of the Tribunal arehithet, oa1″h’5e\u00a71\u00a72eoQ,e\u00a5
\nvehicle\/truck bearing No.  ‘en ‘:
\naccident at about 5.00 p.’%n\u00ab.,__onV’sai:ndat:\u00a7;t)eif_u%\u00a7~.fyyaid m, It
\nwas carrying about’10 tone’_F:(“i”,C)O\u00ab.,l;\u00a7ag;’e) efeerhent, which was<\/p>\n
covered with a tarpe\ufb02ilh \u00e94nc%j1the*re-hv\ufb01rere 20 persons travelling<\/p>\n
iater 6   ‘efrhhe\u00e9rjjvv’heve””succumbed ‘to the fatal
\nInJuriee.., ,:}h!%\u00a7\u00a7g|hgu.:V\u00a7:fg’d v’::he’gllgent drlvlng of the said
\nvehvlcle’.A jezzlalm petitions were \ufb02ied In the
\nMA\u00a2’r.._a’t sau5aa:;:b.hamber petltlon In the MACT at Dharwad<\/p>\n
‘end _onexrnvofe”‘pefitJe’h before the Workmen’s Compensation
\n  HuLn!L The pertlcmere of the claim
\n in MACT, Saundatti, and the cor’resr:cma’ing<\/p>\n
A “-\u00ab\u00abarJl3\u00a7’aESA\u00ab1’~”ere as foiiows :<\/p>\n
 M \\.:.c. Me M.F.A.Nc.\n<\/p>\n
 Mo.\n<\/p>\n
1. 235\/2000 914\/2003\n<\/p>\n
2. 234\/2000 913\/2003\n<\/p>\n
3. 1406\/2000 994,\/2003\n<\/p>\n
4. 255\/2000 7818\/2004\n<\/p>\n
5. 1239\/2990 5355\/2995\n<\/p>\n
6. 1394\/2000 5356\/2005<\/p>\n
u.\n<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
1,724,\/2091 555-t,r2oo5  <\/p>\n
‘7.\n<\/p>\n
3. 1723\/2001 5355\/2oo5,,to,sV,,  u\n<\/p>\n
9. 2231,-‘2GOG Award rt-ot seti,%5fiee._,_ ‘\n<\/p>\n
10. 2230\/2000 petition’*.disrnisSedt’Q ‘\n<\/p>\n
11. 2278\/’2000  Awe’rd’setisfied’-ig  ”\n<\/p>\n
12. 144\/2000  “?q5\/zoos <\/p>\n
13. WCA.No.50\/2006  ~ r     <\/p>\n
The claim flied before WCC 1-!tt__b’!’i,,.<\/p>\n
9. Tribunai accepting.et’h’e:*.ees\u00a7=.g_f theipetitioners has held
\nthat the, injurea\/dieteaserd,’V:inre |\u00a7\u00a7\u00a7A,,,yat’ the said accident,
\nwere traveiiing_-witijhiithi\u00e9iti 9oo’d’s_w~inv:’th\u00a7evv’vvehicie as the owers of
\nthe goods;_”~.aiti’-“the:  er;Aci.dent and consequently has<\/p>\n
aliowedtise c:i:eim”‘petition’s-by} appiying the principle of res<\/p>\n
records*–4such\ufb02asaE:\u00a7,’F\u00ab.,.’i’ — FIR, Ex.P.2 and spot mahazar of the
\n ha”ve…been taken into consideration. Considering<\/p>\n
‘  –the…oraVi\u00abv..evi.dence that, the injured\/dead were travelling with
\nH ” :\ufb02”the.ivr transporting food grains\/vegetabies, it has held<\/p>\n
iuthavtlthe injuredldead were transporting their goods in the<\/p>\n
5’\n<\/p>\n
-s
\n‘1
\n‘-<
\nI3'
\n'–<
\n1::\n<\/p>\n
:11
\n”-<
\n3<\/span>
\nU:\n<\/p>\n
D
\n3′
\nin
\n.5
\nIn
\nIn
\n0<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
-n
\n1-1-\n<\/p>\n
3′
\n{D
\nID
\nD
\nO
\n11<\/span>
\nin
\nH-\n<\/p>\n
O
\nI”‘I’
\n3′
\nID
\n:3.\n<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<
\nID\n<\/p>\n
-t
\nO\n<\/p>\n
-n
\n1-!’<\/p>\n
1′!<\/p>\n
ll}<\/p>\n
I-A Lines in.’ I-Inn ‘P A A n n u n 1.5553: (“A I-I.-.nL LL.
\nLUIILSUI UI LIIU 1lIhL\u00ab||\ufb02IILU LU. LHGL LII<\/p>\n
\ufb02i-\n<\/p>\n
persons who were traveiiing were not the owner or
\nauthorised representative of the goods, has not been<\/p>\n
accepted and the decisions cited before it.
\nI<\/p>\n
\\\/<\/p>\n
qt”-r’<\/p>\n
1o. P.W.1 In MVC No.235\/2000 has dep_osed..’th_at.  the<\/p>\n
second petitioner, that on 5-1-2999, Ga’i’a–gao;:_.s<\/p>\n
iviayaopa Horakeri was transjoorti.n\u00a7 jj+;Ioods_’in”tru:;i<\u00ab iv1E.'Wj<\/p>\n
7045 from Saundatti Vt9._Hut5ii,_v_"when iiiorrykwas
\nmoving at a distance of  from 'Savdndetti, It met with
\nan accident at  p.:i'Vi'Ii4.__(Z'i.tiE\u00ab.i,'O theirash and negiigent<\/p>\n
driving by its driver__v:in_VVtr\u00a7(iriVg *:o.vV.o\ufb01fe;vrtake another lorry and<\/p>\n
in dashing'ito?"the"–.sidea'\u00a7u\u00e91'rd"stone, Including his father, 9
\npersons died in the said aeaide-it and some of the other<\/p>\n
inn1ates'~Stivsta\u00a7'\u00a7ned\u00a2i'njiiries..'HEX. e.1 is complaint – F-'IR, Ex.P.2<\/p>\n
_ \u00a7pot=parn9h'aAn'erna.;"Ex';P.3 — post rnortem examination and<\/p>\n
_F)<.P.4i"– '.'–rep'ort';: In the offended truck, his father was<\/p>\n
-fr’utra.n.spvo.rtindV’3″”b’ags of onion and 2 bags of potato, each<\/p>\n
A ” t’we;\u00ab;iti1s\u00a7ig.[5_o kgs. to Hubii for saie. He had ioadeci the said<\/p>\n
Vg9o.es’3snd has paid charges of Rs.50f–. 19 t<\/p>\n
aauon, he has dejoosed that, his f’t’ner was going to<\/p>\n
 V.  _wjHubii for sale of vegetabies, he received information after 10-<\/p>\n
15 minutes of the accident, his father boarded at
\nGovernment Hospital cross, which is at a distance of 11\/2<\/p>\n
kms. from his house. There were about 10 to 15 inmates in<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
‘x<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
und. It was shandy  He<\/p>\n
has denied the suggestion-…..t_h4at fh’ig4~–1i’f3rher’_:sAVwaspniot<\/p>\n
transporting vegetables in the  track :”tt–h.att.iexce’pt”<\/p>\n
cement bags, no other i\ufb01ateriaiiiwas carr\u00e9.ed”‘:\u00a7}’i\u00abv–the3 saidtruck.
\nHe has denied the suggestion__that  no potato and
\nonion goods be!ng’–..rJ.arar!’ed airr\ufb02ak  and that, his father
\nwas an  persons died at the
\nspot   sustained injuries. The
\ndea_d’Vhorqy\ufb01,   the lorry under the cement
\n it-iiejVEr:a\u00abs_F’dehted-…t_ha suggestion that the lorry was fully<\/p>\n
Ioadediwith”cerrieh’t””‘aag.s and that there was no other goods<\/p>\n
‘being ioadedvlin the said truck. Onions and potatoes were<\/p>\n
not h\u00e9<\/p>\n
‘:3
\n15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
-:\n<\/p>\n
:3
\nS1?\n<\/p>\n
5:}.\n<\/p>\n
ID
\nl’I’
\nFr
\n.3′
\n{D
\nto
\nT3
\n(3
\n\u00a3”‘I’
\nI
\nill}
\nin
\nno
\nI}.\n<\/p>\n
on
\nE3.\n<\/p>\n
{I}
\nC}.\n<\/p>\n
1-1-\n<\/p>\n
:5′
\n{III
\nIn
\nC:\n<\/p>\n
C!
\nIII!
\nE}
\nU’!
\n5<\/span>
\nCi
\n:5
\n.\u00bb-r
\nr<\/p>\n
J………I<\/p>\n
  rjrouuceu documents regarding his father carrying<\/p>\n
  P.W.2, first petitioner in MVC No.234\/2000 has stated<\/p>\n
that, his mother Ningawwa boarded truck MEW 7045 at
\nSaundatti, by loading potato and onion bags .or oethg<\/p>\n
he said vehicie on<\/p>\n
5-1-2000, his mother sustained fatai injuries a.rs’r:.1_'”ci,i_ed at the<\/p>\n
spot. The driver caused the accident by  negiigent<\/p>\n
D.\n<\/p>\n
Z’.\n<\/p>\n
S.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n\ufb01D
\n‘N
\n5<\/span>
\nan.\n<\/p>\n
IF!’
\nIE\n<\/p>\n
-3.\n<\/p>\n
ll}
\nID.\n<\/p>\n
Fm’-\n<\/p>\n
SE
\nI3
\n0<\/span>
\nFl’
\n3′
\nID
\n‘1
\n3’
\nID\n<\/p>\n
12.\n<\/p>\n
-“3
\n3<\/span>
\nfl}
\nE3′
\n\u00a35′.\n<\/p>\n
(3
\n:E
\n5*
\n\u00a31<\/p>\n
e ehrtie<\/p>\n
iorry. The dead body was remeyeef hr the–._e’v.evn,Aing,_,at 7;?)<\/p>\n
p.m. His mother was d,oi_r_ig iousiness “of’:’;on’ionse,and
\npotatoes. Ex.P.5 is the  ,,,,,.\u00bb:ee$ ot his mother.
\nHis mother was  of.onioAn anciz bags of
\npotatoes each, weiVg_h’ih_g’ that day, himself<\/p>\n
loaded th’e”sal!d g_r:oods5in”th:e’7.’offerSded lorry aiong with his<\/p>\n
and the  recevhrihg of the information regarding<\/p>\n
the.accident,’:he_”I’rnn*.\u00bbeo’iateiy went to the spot and noticed<\/p>\n
that hisrnjiothrer a=fter”sustaining injuries had died on the spot<\/p>\n
 his fatherwas stlii alive, and was shifted to Saundatti<\/p>\n
V ”  ” has stated that the driver charged Rs.40\/- for<\/p>\n
“,__”‘trans,so.rti:hg 4 bags, In the c.ro-s ….\u00a5I5!”!”.i!”.\u00e9t!0.”!<\/p>\n
depesed that, his mother boarded the said trucx at :>aurIu’ tti<\/p>\n
  “ijus stand, she had loaded 2 ‘bags of onion and 2 bags of<\/p>\n
potatoes. There were 18 persons in the said truck, his
\nmother was sitting in the body of the truck. In the said<\/p>\n
truck, cement bags were ioadeci and it was tied with<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
9’.”\n<\/p>\n
tarpauiin. He has denied the suggestion that4.his_rnother was<\/p>\n
an unauthorised passenger in the truck en\u00ab:_.T”t’h*etV*-she-was not<\/p>\n
accident and he had tom the Polite ueIbou’t’*-transpoajting the?<\/p>\n
goods by his mother and fa_ther}\u00a5.v_i-‘lie  fsornejibeiow
\nthe load of cement bags of .said”ior_ry’.v’:  has denied the
\nsuggestion that  there were no other
\nload of the goods iyn\ufb02tithey  persons died and ,7-8<\/p>\n
persons were-ibis. redi  \u00ab..=..a.., “essident.<\/p>\n
 inytnyc Nos.234 and 235\/zooo has<\/p>\n
debosed that;  year nine months back, he boarded<\/p>\n
Atheu ioiryiymiaisot’ri;.aaea 4 bags of onion and 2 bags of<\/p>\n
..’isi_’1Aj’9oi:’eto; .._for ttransborting from Saundattl to Hubii. His wife<\/p>\n
rnavnirwer and after moving a distance of 4 kms. from<\/p>\n
 u _ _’.j’A”:;’:.-aundattl, the driver lost control of the vehicle and turtled it<\/p>\n
by the side of the road. His wife Ningawwa and deceased
\nGangappa came below the lorry, he was thrown out and<\/p>\n
sustained injuries. His wife and Gangappa died at the spot<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
if’: an a A A A s ; n ‘ a-A ALISL I’ -\u00bb’|’ .’<\/p>\n
ueugqppa were smueo’ to Government i1espitei.;j—-<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\n. D’<\/p>\n
“L<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
He was shifted to KMC Ho5Pit__a.L. Hubn,a’rorafonhartreatmehtt<\/p>\n
He was transporting 2 bags of oriioh hags..ot?_ootato,’:<\/p>\n
each weighing 50 kgs. was aisoivtvttrayeiyiylng withhim
\naiong with the said goodVs:;:”‘:-toeceasted tsanngafppa and others
\nwere also traveIVit’hg”1iAn”.V_gth_eJ’sa’i’e.::’b’iogrry, They were also
\n   The driver had
\ntaxen   goods. In the cross<\/p>\n
examinatio.n;,_he t\ufb01that he has \ufb02ied a separate<\/p>\n
petition Afor_r:l_a’imi’n.g””compensation for injuries sustained by r<\/p>\n
him;.._i-ie was  the body of the truck. About 7-8<\/p>\n
‘ persons.’ weVre”‘traye|iing in the truck. There were about 4<\/p>\n
l”i3S denied tun: auggustl\ufb01l<\/p>\n
to <\/p>\n
A ‘–4…spa_ice.in’ the iorry for carrying other goods and that he was<\/p>\n
 to  nottransportlng any goods as stated by him. He has denied<\/p>\n
V * . the suggestion that, late Gangappa was also not transporting<\/p>\n
any goods and at the time of accident no other goods were
\ntransported except cement. He has denied” the suggestion<\/p>\n
that, himself end others were unauthoriseu passengers in the<\/p>\n
In<\/p>\n
aid iorry and that he did rot observe as to noW–s:t’h.e”–accident<\/p>\n
occurred. Poiice had enquiried with him..A’a:hon:t”.tsheiaczcid\u00e9ent<\/p>\n
and he had told the Police about’ trio ttgrainsndrtolinaootofthe<\/p>\n
goods.\n<\/p>\n
13. R.W.1_, the g_Assistan_t:’~AdnninistrativAeVgobfficer in the<\/p>\n
insured  tIn_h_i|1   goods carriage, on the
\ndate__oi’ e.c_cid’ent,”   cement bags. He has gone
\nthrough AtVhe.Poiice”pa’overs and found that the deceased were<\/p>\n
traveitigngr  passengers in the offended vehicle<\/p>\n
gntthe time. __o’fV accident: They were not transporting other<\/p>\n
  guodis i_.’.’*t._he iorr”. Thercfore, the Insurarre Co. is not iiabie<\/p>\n
  cor:i’pensation. in the cross examination, he has<\/p>\n
“”stat,ed-that he does not have personai knowledge of the<\/p>\n
 .. edeceased not carrying the goods, that he has not received<\/p>\n
V’  information from the driver or the owner of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
He has denied the suggestion that the deceased persons
\nwere travelling by transporting t..eir respective goods ‘*1 the
\nsate iorry and that they had paid charges to the driver for<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
transporting their respective goods. He VlS’.._fi9t aware,<\/p>\n
whether driver of the lorry is alive or dea;”c’i’.W.’i\u00e9_i’–e’._lj”denied<\/p>\n
cornpensation, he is deposingfaiseiiyj.  ‘1 ”<\/p>\n
14. Exhibit P.1 is the Fi\ufb01”irerusai-ofthe some shows that
\nthe complalnantvvas :.l\u00a7lag..anvag.owda taiirevvagowda. In<\/p>\n
the complaint, it was’etated::th~a’tv,.’ ‘he_.boarded the truck MEW<\/p>\n
7045,. winmi;-\u00abas toatled w’ith’*\u00a3:ernent bags
\nwere eitti.ng..V and  were also people inside the cabin. In<\/p>\n
the vehitie, their-e\u00a2’w.ere abobt 20 persons. The driver of the<\/p>\n
trtiel\u00a7’,V~told by the inmates not to drive the<\/p>\n
_uehIclle”‘in:V high speed, disregarding the advice and without<\/p>\n
“i–..”:si1.owing anvieoheern towards the Inmates, drove the vehicle<\/p>\n
3 speed and in negligent manner and after about 4<\/p>\n
I  Seundettl, while ettemnttn<\/p>\n
nu:-rv rig<\/p>\n
‘ ” the vehicie and cause” the accident at<\/p>\n
aka. ‘ad; I… L. .4
\nV’ic:lI!t..ie3, He Lu!
\n5<\/span><\/p>\n
CL<\/p>\n
e
\n.00 pm. Himself and 4-5 personsjumped out of the
\nvehicle and the remaining persons got trapped below the<\/p>\n
truck. He has sustained injuries. People gathered and pulled<\/p>\n
l<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
K’.\n<\/p>\n
out the injured from the bottom of the truck, outyof whom, 8<\/p>\n
had died and 8 others had received the inJu.r!e\u00a7_;r’__’__r:”‘..’  <\/p>\n
Ci<\/p>\n
hi<\/p>\n
(‘I-\n<\/p>\n
S<\/p>\n
“”iK .\n<\/p>\n
-an<\/p>\n
f\ufb02i
\n:5 x .\n<\/p>\n
(‘<\/p>\n
mi
\nI–I
\nni-\n<\/p>\n
shows that goods truck,  704.15′ w_a’s .”f-ouriidiiiupside down,
\nhaving met with accident’,\ufb01V\ufb01”th.e it\/e’hi’ci’e4 was found in
\ndamaged conditioni’  5epsj..were found scattered
\nby the side   was found torn and
\nthere  some chappals were found<\/p>\n
v..a’v’e been mentioned t’ner’in, from which it<\/p>\n
is_see.n”~that .thverAe\u00ab._was no mention about any potato, onion or<\/p>\n
._’:L_j’iany.cAV:othAer i\/’e’g’et–a’bIe bags, etc. being found at the accident<\/p>\n
A – if “sp’et:\u00a7   <\/p>\n
15. ;_ similar is the evidence in respec<\/p>\n
V \u00ab. H-H
\n;?euI..I0i”IS.\n<\/p>\n
17. From the oral evidence of the witnesses examined in<\/p>\n
the claim petitions it is clear that, more than 16 persons<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
X
\nr\/’ \\ ‘<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
were travelling in the goods truck and that tvhe..:4:t’r.uck was<\/p>\n
loaded with 200 bags of cement, covered__’:iv’!’th _e’..j:te.:,:oeu!in=<\/p>\n
bags, nor any of them, much iessigthteob itnmatesva-rrAas.:.havingA I<\/p>\n
booked the iorry for transportiragthe   ::’The
\nevidence is to the effect’V’Vi’tha’t the: had paid
\ncharges to the  itvverei”‘t.ransporting goods ilke
\npotato, onion bagsH_:t_o..V  does not show<\/p>\n
personf _VEx\ufb01_.:\u00a7’-‘,2,  aiso does not indicate the
\npresence “of_..an\u00a7.veget:abIes or bags containing vegetables at
\nthe scene otV_.ac’cid’ent”;’\u00ab.”The claim that injured\/dead were<\/p>\n
trensportin_g ‘goods ivnhthe iorry has not been proved. The<\/p>\n
 ‘ v-‘:rg\u00e9ry”n’.presenceAofrnore than 15 persons in the goods iorry,<\/p>\n
 bags of cement in it, shows that they were<\/p>\n
it.” Ihe petitioners have faiied to estabiish that the iorry was<\/p>\n
 ‘V__h’ooked for carrying the goods by the injured\/dead and that<\/p>\n
they had loaded the goods and were accompanying the
\ngoods to the destination. Ex.P.1 and P.2 are undisputed<\/p>\n
documents. Contents of the said documents, do not show<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
K<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
the presence of any goods like potatoes, onio,ne,:,:”ae_ claimed<\/p>\n
by the injured or the heirs of the deceaeefd”‘in\u00ab’..’theV5aeeldent.<\/p>\n
The contention of Sri. B.C.seetnarai”ne~%3o,~,iear*ied VCt’itii’i:-Eel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner, relying upon fthef’vd’eci’sio’n 4in’:at,he,;case’**of.i
\nORIENTAL INSURANCE (20,, LTD,’  PRa..-\u00ab1L;\u00a7,’rn: ui<tmo
\nOTHERS, reported in   that it is not
\npermissible to ,t"'d.oc,uinentswhich have been
\nmarked only for limited,  to rely upon the<\/p>\n
marked -'qivecltiniente !'= othe_r"*p'n~rp'ose=, is wet! .om'-tied in<\/p>\n
lull!<\/p>\n
view of the ti_er;iaretio~ri_- o_f"ia'w 'therein, to the foiiowing effect;<\/p>\n
V "'i0,'i'he"\u00abins-urer, however, would be liable<\/p>\n
" V, tore' i.rnb,urse-.._th'e""insureci to the extent of the
\n"damages oeyafeie by the owner to the claimants<\/p>\n
. subjects of course to the limit of its liability as<\/p>\n
\u00bb   laid "donrrf_I_,,\u00bbin the Act or the contract of
\n insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on
\n *.th_e"'= part of the driver of the Vehicle, is
\nther.efore, sine qua non for maintaining an<\/p>\n
 ' ."appiication under Section 166 of the Act.<\/p>\n
 11.The learned Counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
* behalf of the respondent contended that First
\nInformation Report was brought on record for
\nthe purpose of proving the accident and not for
\nfixing the iiebiiity on the part of driver of the
\nvehicle involved therein.\n<\/p>\n
12. In Narbada Devi (supra) whereupon
\nreliance has been placed, this Court held that
\ncontents of a document are not automatically
\nproved only because the same is marked as an<\/p>\n
\\\/
\n\/’,,.\n<\/p>\n
0′<\/p>\n
Exhibit. There is no dispute with regard
\nsaid legal proposition. ‘ ” ‘<\/p>\n
13. However, the factum of  aozident-\u00ab<_
\ncouici aiso be proved frornthe First'In.forrn\u00bbavtion:., "
\nReport. It is also to  noted thot"o_rs;:e"e
\npart of the contents'-.,of;'the\u00a7 doou_n'ion,te'–..,i\u00a7<[
\nadmitted in evidenoe,'\u00bbt!:e!_ aorta? hi'\u00a7':-.\ufb01'i,ii\ufb01<\/p>\n
the some on record-..oannot he permittedito
\nturn around and "a:o"io.tond ihait .'.i:iI{e other
\ncontents contained in._tie.e restport thereof
\nhad not Beetn..,provo!oii.,._"Both the parues have
\nroiled thereupon It wasrnerked as an Exhibit
\nas both the parties lrs–tenVdedti'tojrereiy upon them.<\/p>\n
, 41,4;-.Onc _a_,}part"'of~~.it isjreliod upon by
\niootirf: the pm-i:ieo,_,.iV:E1,o "learned Tribunal
\nosonr\u00a7_ot"""iie \u00bb  have committed ny
\niliegaiity in ~reI."yin,g upon the other part,<\/p>\n
 """ "irr_eiopaotive"'–., 'of the' oontonte of the<\/p>\n
doousnont,  proved or not. If the<\/p>\n
.l<\/p>\n
 eon'tenteere.he,-.:e.. hear: ,-sroveu, the \ufb01ueetion
\n'of _roiiane'e _ thereupon only upon a part<\/p>\n
titnareof -.and Knot upon the root, on the<\/p>\n
 _ toohn_ic-.'a'I ground that the some had not
\n1 been proved in aooordanoe with law, would
\n  notiorisa.\n<\/p>\n
 A party ob’ectir* to the adrnissioiiity<\/p>\n
‘oTf;a,,1=document must raise its objection at the
\n ~a_p._oropriate time. if the objection is not raised<\/p>\n
.. land the document is allowed to be marked and
\n“that too at the instance of a party which had<\/p>\n
proved the eeme end wherefor consent of the
\nother party -has been obtained, the former in
\nour opinion oarmot be permitted to turn round
\nand raise a contention that the contents of the
\ndocuments had not been proved and, thus,
\nshould not be relied upon. In Hukum Singh.
\n(supra), the law was correctly been laid down<\/p>\n
by the Pooiao and Her”=”a H’-h Court statir<\/p>\n
_.r<\/p>\n
“3. Mr. G.C.Mlttal, learned Counseivfot”‘the
\nrespondent contended that Ram Pretap.”‘ha’d4<\/p>\n
produced oniy his former dep_os’ition…_:ehd
\ngave no evidence in Court which r;oui’d'”he’: ”<\/p>\n
considered by the Additional..E\u00a7sti’i:ct-.3utige;”  <\/p>\n
I am afraid there–“”i’s—.no”_ meritgin
\nThe Trial :C:ou;rt<_heci '~di'sr;usseo?.'
\nthe evidence of Rarr'.yPrat'ap irithe iight._.of..
\nthe report Exhiiznt D.1 pro'ducer!\u00bb'by.him. The ' ,
\nAdditional Distri.et"~~Judge .witiiev-._he.e'ring" the "<\/p>\n
C0!"lt\u00e9l'iti0|'l.\n<\/p>\n
appeal could heave _comrnented {on that
\nevideneeend heid itvtohe inadreissiioie if law
\nso permitted. But .h’e\u00ab._di.d”n.ot at all have this
\nevidence beforei.hVi’s:.’mind;_itwas not a case
\nofVinadmissl’bi.e veviden’ce”eith’er. No doubt
\nthe prooedurertedopted byythe trial Court in<\/p>\n
?.lettiet7   i:’ertif’ied~’eep\\,r of the previous
\n‘ ‘de’pos–ition_V…___of._ Rfam Partap made in the<\/p>\n
t;riminei’ proceetii-nee end eiiowiog the same<\/p>\n
_ ‘to sprovecl by’-Ram Partap himself was not
\nA”t;_orret;t and he should have been examined<\/p>\n
‘again in Vi’re\u00a7_ierd’ to all that he had stated<\/p>\n
” _ ee.rIie.r’.in”‘t_he\u00ab statement the parties in order<\/p>\n
to save ‘time did not object to the previous<\/p>\n
 ..depo’siti’on’ being proved by Ram Partap<\/p>\n
h”lrnse__i_fA.who was only cross-examined. It is
\nnot a case where irrelevant evidence had<\/p>\n
..:””*vheen let in with the consent of the parties
\n“a~.bfet the only objection is that the procedure<\/p>\n
[followed in the matter of giving evidence in
\nlcou was not correct.\n<\/p>\n
when the perties
\nthemselves have allowed certain statements
\nto be pieced on the record as a part of their
\nevidence, it is not open to them to urge later
\neither in the same Court or in a Court of
\neopee! that the evidence produced’ was
\ninadmissible. To allow them to do so would
\nindeed be permitting them both to approbate<\/p>\n
lull in His:\n<\/p>\n
and reprobate.”\n<\/p>\n
(Bold is by us for emphasis.)<\/p>\n
i
\nX<\/p>\n
18. From perusal of Ex.P.1 and P2, It is.~’~cli.afa:!l’..’._j_i’?\u00ab3~’\u00a7iVtit the<\/p>\n
H.\n<\/p>\n
beiohgind to the imured or deau,.t.ca;.hh.ou’ fs’e._hoti.cedA,T jEx.P_.1_j<\/p>\n
and P.2 have come into exvistevhce imthediateiljfiaftero\u00bb the
\naccident. Ex.P.2 shows thelirehicie, presence
\nof torn tarpauil’h:\u00a7\u00bb..\/.t_cen\ufb01e’ll.\ufb01AVi’:’l)aci_s~–..and’other articles like
\nchappais, etc., ‘i*i.ke}~~ohion, potato, etc. as<\/p>\n
claimed ;i,j\\,i”;;th’e .,t\u00a7_titioriers,,::’belonging to the injured\/dead.<\/p>\n
provethat,thei”r.j.ureti,’ciead”‘had booked the goods vehicle for<\/p>\n
tra’hsp~orting.’jol’~.t’heA:_A’goods, had loaded the goods arid that<\/p>\n
_ they were awccorrepahying the goods. The very fact that the<\/p>\n
V-‘:._”\u20ac’loir’r.y had inHlt””2’OO bags of cement, the ownership or booking<\/p>\n
3  of:jw’hi4c’lV:::was not claimed by any of the injured\/dead, shows<\/p>\n
Erepresentatlve oi’ the goods in the vehicle. The point for<\/p>\n
consideration is whether appellant can be held liable to
\nsatisfy the award when the petitioners have failed to prove<\/p>\n
that the injured\/dead were_not the owner of goods or<\/p>\n
i ,<\/p>\n
.2<\/p>\n
S, tra\ufb01a\ufb01e\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01 _<\/p>\n
vehicie. Tribunai by reiying upon the
\nSINGH and RAMESH KUMAR (Siiipfa) hestthveidjvtheioippejiit\u00e9ritey
\ninsurer to be iiabie. Hon’bie:”Sup’_rerne’Court  of ‘:
\nNEW INDIA ASSURANCEr’VC_’0,zVvsi”A$i-iA aA~i,ireeiea in AIR<\/p>\n
2003 SC 607, noticing thi\u00a7”!:aw.._vlaidh’d\u00abowAn_i\u00a7n the case of<\/p>\n
  Ina Setpel’s. “ciaj’se____H(supra), the Court
\nasst:.,me’d ._that\u00abth-e provisions of Section 95(1) of
\nMotor\u00bbVV’ehiciesj*–.i_Actv;_y. ‘1,93~-9 are identical with
\nSez:tien.;_;,147(1)V’ot*th_e Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,<\/p>\n
 “”” “ess.it:,stodd’prior-to itsemendment. But a carefui
\n scruti–‘ny~..ofitheprovisions would make it clear that
\n prior” to’\u00abt’r’ie’erni’encin1ent of 1994 it was necessary
\nfor-the”–insu’rer”to insure against the owner of the
\ngoods V or ihis’~~~”authorised representative being
\n  carrie-d_”in a” goods vehicle. on an erroneous
\n;_ impressi’ =–n——tnis Court came to the conclusion that
\n” f the..insurer would be iiehie to pay compensation in
\n  “respect of the death or bodiiy injury caused to
\n :”‘–e’i_tner*v”the owner of the goods or his authorised
\nrepresentative when being carried in a goods
\n ‘vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor
\n~. gvehicies Amended Act of 1994 is examined,
\n‘ — particularly Section 46 of Act 5 of 1991 by which
\nexpression ‘injury to any person’ in the origin-ei
\nAct stood substituted by the expression ‘injury to
\nany person inciuding owner of the goods or his
\nauthorised representative carried in the vehicle’
\nthe conclusion is irresistible that prior to the
\naforesaid Amendment Act of 1994, even if widest
\ninterpretation is given to the expression ‘to any
\nperson’ it wiii not cover either the owner of the
\ngoods or his authogised representative being<\/p>\n
i
\n\/’
\n\/\/..\n<\/p>\n
cerried in the yehicie. The objects and reasons<\/p>\n
NF
\nII? U’<\/p>\n
clause 46 also states that it” seeks…._to\u00bb..arnend<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Section 147 to inciude owner of the—good’s.ijo–r “rats
\nauthorised representative carriedHin.._the=vehi’cl–e_
\nfor the purposes of liability und\u00aber’the’uIn’surance ”<\/p>\n
Policy. It is no doubtftrue”tha*t_ s:orn..ei;-!rnves”th’e
\nlegislature amends the a\ufb02iaw <._b'y_' way.' 'of
\narnpii\ufb01cation of an inn rent position.tfri1iah<\/p>\n
the words used in ti1estatute,*- as"'i?.':3to"Qd prior to
\nits amendment of ____'i-Qsie, an'd~._as it stands
\nsubsequent. "to_ its" amendment in" "1994 and
\nbearing in mi'nd"t_he_ objject'eg'ahd reasons ehgrafted
\nin the amended :prov*isions._referred to earlier, it is
\ndifficult. for vu's'~-to construev_ that the expression
\n'inciudlnjg ownerjof~the'.j_good;s or his authorised
\nrepresentative c'.=a_rried}–in the vehicle which was
\na'dde.d. to'lthe–jjpresekylsteci— expression ' Injury to
\nany "per_son' is evitiierciaytificatory or ampli\ufb01cation
\nthe presexisti-ng statute. on the other hand it
\n_cieari.ywdemonst-rates that the legislature wanted<\/p>\n
to 'bring."'-with_ini–.,the sweep of Section 147 and<\/p>\n
' \u00abmarking. lt'.VCorn–puisory for the insurer to insure<\/p>\n
evenv in case oi?'a goods vehicle, the owner of the<\/p>\n
*  goodsor his authorised representative being<\/p>\n
carried' inmagoods vehicle when that vehicle met<\/p>\n
 f with an accident and the owner of the goods or<\/p>\n
I \ufb01il<\/p>\n
"h_i'sV'riepresentative either dies or suffers bodily<\/p>\n
V' _  t..J..';_i._.,~'
\n= y "iliJl.ii3.i'.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment of this Court in Satpai”s<\/p>\n
‘ca;_se’, therefore must be held to have not been
\n“correctly decided and the impugned judgment of<\/p>\n
the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court<\/p>\n
accordingly are set aside and these appeals are
\naiiowed. It is heid that th insurer is!!! not be
\nliable for paying compensation to the owner of
\ngoods or his authorised representative on being
\ncarried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle
\nmeets with an accident and the owner of goods or
\nhis representative dies or suffers any bodily<\/p>\n
injury.”\n<\/p>\n
‘X<\/p>\n
‘.-.ra.|;.~……’..~
\ni::1I.m:i cu<\/p>\n
in the statute, butra ‘plain rneanllngi”bei.ng-..gl\\ren to.’<\/p>\n
14-‘
\nU-\n<\/p>\n
1O T\ufb01
\n.I.7u IL<\/p>\n
55′<\/p>\n
clear from the said decle\u00e9on that,..vtne\u00ab..deciaion in
\ns TFAL SINGH has been held to be  the
\ncase of RAMESH KUMAR, the__dec_l_slon~’l’n’v”\u00a7i5r?\u00a5TFi)5i:L,’_’\u00a7Iliit3Hhad
\nbeen foilowed. Since the
\nSINGH is held to be notbglood law  .t_he.:V’la’rger…Benoh  the
\nApex Court, in the case  the Tribunal,<\/p>\n
s lifted hwldlng the appellant as<\/p>\n
in our view was no5&.’.._i, . .. .._
\nn..1._1.. 1.- -_:.i,_g.- LI_; _~.,,.:V.-_
\nH3033 E0 535: * TY {H52 awalas.\n<\/p>\n
2o.  INSURANCE co.l:rb. vs.
\n<:i1oi.,'..\u00e9*l'Iiil"aH,r\u00a7a49l"r\u00e9\u00a7'i~i..MAAND 0RS., reported in 2007 AIR
\nSC\\'llf'V.7:3l3v7',V.the question about the liability of the
\n_;,.Inse,iranVce; to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, in<\/p>\n
   of passengers travelling in goods carriage,<\/p>\n
 the various decisions rendered earlier, it has
\n been  that in the absence of proof that the deceased was<\/p>\n
 A.  trairelllng in lorry along with the driver or cleaner, as owner
\nit "  goods, travelling with goods itself, does not entitle any one<\/p>\n
to protection under Sec. 147 of the Act.<\/p>\n
21. Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of sirr. THQKCHOM<\/p>\n
ONGOI SANGEETA AND ANOTHER’ vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE<\/p>\n
X,<\/p>\n
\/,\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
<n<\/p>\n
CO.LTD. & ORS., reportedin AIR 2008 SC 24.5V;il\u00bb-considering<\/p>\n
the claim of third party risks in the oaci<.gro'~':\u00abosvt..or .:veh_!c!es<\/p>\n
a.-kg-i..u._…..a. a!<\/p>\n
Chapter V\ufb01l, has held as follovys f: it<\/p>\n
9. The di,fe.rence in~t.;e..gisngeeg’e’Vof<\/p>\n
“goods vehicle” as app*earing in ‘th.eC.’)id Act and
\n“gooo’s carriage” in ,ti’1’e-Act is-__of significance. A
\nbare readlng…_o’f the provi..sion’s makes It clear
\nthat the legislative i’n.ten’t w’as’:to”‘prohibit goods
\nvehiclefrom yc:arrv,ting_ any”‘passien”ger. This is
\ncleaphfrorn {the ‘expression :*’in addition to
\npassen;;,=ers’f  ‘conta_ined*——+:’ definition of
\n“;goo’d.s”*ve*hicl\u00abefi__ in Vthe\ufb02oid Act. The position
\nbecomes fL’n”ther.”_’clea*r because the expression<\/p>\n
 —- ~=u.sed lsii::,’~’go–ods ca’rr!.-age” is solely for the
\n“carri_agVe’~of goods”_. _* Carrying of passengers in<\/p>\n
–_ ‘a goods’-\u00bb..ca\u00bbrri”age’– is not contemplated in the
\n” Act. Therevis'”no'”provision similar to clause (ii)
\nV! the prov{s’o__a’ppended to Section 95 of the<\/p>\n
. Old ._Act~pre’scribing requirement of insurance
\n” poiicy}-V Even Section 147 of the Act mandates
\n compulsory coverage against death of or bodily
\nseamen:-y to any passenger of “public service
\n._”-\u00ab..i\\.I’eh’icie”. The proviso makes it further clear
\n‘ \u00abt’if:.at[:= compulsory coverage in respect of drivers<\/p>\n
. ~an.o’ conductors of public service vehlcie and
\n employees carried in goods vehicle would be
\n* limited to liability under the Workrnenls
\nCompensation Act, 1923. There is no
\nreference to any passenger in “goods<\/p>\n
rarriand’
\n&\ufb02IIl\u00a2 n\n<\/p>\n
10. The inevitable conciusion, truer re, I5
\nthat provisions of the Act do not enjoin any<\/p>\n
statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to
\nget his vehicle insured for any passenger<\/p>\n
:\/
\n(‘I<\/p>\n
III!:uldl!\u00a3;i=}v~..l.iEa’l’t_ W5 ‘i__ \ufb01\ufb01\ufb01\u00e9f<\/p>\n
travelling In a goods carriage and th- ihssiret.<\/p>\n
would have no liability therefor.<\/p>\n
11. The above position was highlighted in’-._
\nDevireddy irionda Raddy” and.”‘t.’n’s,’j’s “case  ”
\n(supra) and National Insurance ‘Compamr Ltd’. 1
\nv. Ajit Kumar and Ors. (AIR :2\u00a3\\.G3 BC ’30*.?3′},\u00a7,,..\u00ab <\/p>\n
12 The High court.._was}’-therefore;A..ju.stl\ufb02.edVh
\nin hoiding t’* *<\/p>\n
“at the insurer was—-n_oi;~.ii_abie.,”<\/p>\n
(Underiining isby asp)’ –\n<\/p>\n
22. In vle’nro–f  and the law declared<\/p>\n
by the Honfhle-Eugorerfne’~~C_o’t;rt,.; in our view, the Tribunal was<\/p>\n
notvjustlfled i’ii;:.:hol’dlbn–g thatrwwthe insurer is ilahle to pay the
\neonthehlsatlol\ufb01toh “the,reshohdentsjpetltloners. Hence, we<\/p>\n
5′<\/p>\n
Holt’. that, v.the.1Tr_ihunal was not justified in fastening the
\n_~ii:abvi_iityVv on “the..____.ahpellant — Insurance Co. to satisfy the
\nawavrds;\u00ab.The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
H ‘–  ‘petltIo’n’ers;lo’lalmants, is without any merit and is negatlved.<\/p>\n
 In the result, appeals are allowed and the impugned<\/p>\n
against the appellant, shall stand dismissed. Consequently,<\/p>\n
the cross-objections, seeking enhancement of award amount,<\/p>\n
\\..\n<\/p>\n
at.-\n<\/p>\n
.{r<\/p>\n
39<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances, we direct the parties to ‘G\u20ac%’–?__u”{i’i’~5-.’.\u00a7’i”‘—-__\u00a7’iE’f5\ufb01\u20ac:C”V\u00e9<\/p>\n
Office\/Tribunal, Is’ -.ljVereAby.  ‘ ‘diifeCS;1e::Ci ;     > the
\namount deposited, either  Interim orders
\npassed or -at   :f!i{\u00bb%i\u00a7’~thes\u00e9A  appe-als, to the
\nappellant.    ‘}   ”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 Author: Chidananda Ullal Gowda THE HOl\\|’BLE MR. JUSTECE::’\u20acHI\ufb01A_N\ufb01N\ufb013\u00a7!JI:\ufb01\ufb01L 5 ‘ ~…AN|) -._ THE I-lON’BI.E MR. Jus1jeEA.N.vEn u\u00e9onALA eowon Iln\u00e9-ulnnn : Nati6fia.i_ Ire5;i’ra\ufb01c\u00e9’ i..td., \u00a7-iuh_l.l Braimlj ‘Office. 1*hrz5ju’h~.qts aegum office, No–\u00bb..144’,\u00ab.S’ubharam Complex, !\\!!.\u00a3.”-.’=?r.$ar*;- .33-‘-galcre-1. R212; “z:r.v}its Administrative Of\ufb01cer S1-i.’V!.<.K. Mamk. " Appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-23T20:39:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T20:39:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":6544,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T20:39:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-23T20:39:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T20:39:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008"},"wordCount":6544,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008","name":"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T20:39:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chidambar-vs-the-national-insurance-co-ltd-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chidambar vs The National Insurance Co Ltd on 4 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149383","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=149383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}