The Manager National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Sheela on 30 July, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

The Manager National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Sheela on 30 July, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 30'" DAY' OF JULY 2oos%% 7";  % R

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR, JUSTICE 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP§3_}§_AI.  No.   .1539 2066  %

 

 

pa  u  mag; zmsgmv;

  %
.5513/_E._E¢N_; "    

The Managqr  1'
Nationa1:'VInsu'rTaﬂ¢s: ¢ .4 
CompunyALimi£::d    *
Branch omge, mm  A  

T}l!'()l£;'g3i'§1_S   '

" V.    ..... .. V
' ' Sii'Ll'bh2£IBIlI§' Ccirzgpicx

II F1601; "I-44,. M,' VG, Road

 
 By i:s'Assistan;t'
-- Admiﬁisiralivé Q1130:  APPEITLANT

H "   S. Lingaraju and D. T. Chclan, Advocates)

n  '     Smt. Shocla, 57 years

D/0 Late Padma Poojari
Resident of Laxmisha

 



House, Kolanjilody
Koyyur Village
Bcllhangudy Taluk

2. Subbaraja Shaslari, Major
S/o Padmanabha Shastri
Residing at Manila House
Puncha Village  _    . A  '   
Banlwala Taiuk ' ._   . R.EvSP()T%D'&3'JTS"V

(Shri. P. Karunakar,    I and
Rﬁsruondent No. 2 - S6fV3d._) \, A  ~ V ~. 

*'$¢tgi }

This Mis1:;s£Igiiieé1us"'--1?5r§§E Vis ﬁled under Section
173(1) of the V.:hic}"e3 *A_£_:_t Véigainst ﬂue judgement and
award   in  No. 1275/2002 on the ﬁle
of the '>{3ivi.l-- Judge-_»  ("SﬁfIi§.D3'"-._ Division) and Additional CJM,
Mcstnber,"-.Mulur -- «Ciaims Tribunal, Pullur, D. K.
awarding a 'eQmpensa1:i£an»*of"_Rs. 64,700!- with interest at 6% 13.3.
from thczdate 61' this petiiion" till the date of dcptasil.

' VM'FA No. 1640/2006

mMangg¢;  
Naticiinal Iiisarance

' _  _  §3ompany Limited

  ._ ~_.Th.r£)ugh its
   Regional Office
' V  " Sﬁubharam Cumplax
'  é . II Floor, 144, M. G. Road

Bangalore-560 001



 _  No. 2"~~-wSe;_'§_rAed)

By its Assistant

Administrative Oﬂice   * e M 41

(By Shri. H. s. Linguruju and 1). T. C!iei}iﬁ','AdQpeaLe§e)«.   
AND:    1 % % 3

1. Smt. Prema, 34 years
W/<3 Babu Poojary 
Resident of Laxmisha' .,
House, Kolanjiledy ' ' __ -  
Koyyur Vi!lage__  '
Belthangady T2.|J;z§:._  

2. Subbarajz£'Sht:.s1z£fi; 3Maj'oj1f-- ,    ; '
S/0 Padmanaba'32:*i,;_Shae*t;i  ~
Residihégate.  Hu_n2;e"
Puncha Vil!aVge~."'~-._"e _ '  ' -
Bantwala Taluk      RESPONDENTS

(Shri. ep.  A}31¢iv-Jecsale rm Respondent No. 1 and

Iﬂllllllt

    2 First Appeal is filed under Section

173(1) of Aﬂiee Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and
award 26.32005 passed in MVC. No. 1277/2002 on the file

 'of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional CIM,
 vMember,'=---MukJr Accidents Claims Tn'bun_aJ, Puttur, D. K.
- _ ~~.i:1xrar(i*i«ng a compensation of Rs. 25,000f- with interest at 6% p.a.

' ._1i~z_Jin-- the date of this petition til} the date of deposit.

These Appeals coming on for hearing this day, {he Court

V V  ,  4 delivered the foﬂowing:--~

g



JUDGMENT

Heard the Couascl for the appellant and the V

2. These appeals are considered together.

in each of these appeals wcrc lhc 'Lhc;

Accidents Claims Tribunal (hcrcinaiﬁcriiclfcrrcd lo " L. for brevity). They were occupanlsiiicf pifivalc had met with an accident and as ai1~clsi';l1 ~ Elie said respondents having been injmwi, had laid-ixjiclaizii"»{Z)i'iii:gsi1iiii§-isiisalicza balm the Trll)unal.Li %%%% H'flifgi,Tiil$ii12;§]~.}g§;ying;i._iﬁdJiicsscd their claim petitions has Iiastciicll lhc which was [he insurcr of lhc_e:cnccriicd_:iycliiclclariili ii is this liability which is sought to _ A. A A _. _____ .. '\

3.ii A for the appellant would submii that the policy i in er the insured vchiclc was a 'A' policy issued under the i iflndia Motor Ta.rilT and lhcrclbrc, the liability of the insurer clcarly absolved in rcspccl of a occupant of the insumd ' vehicle. In that, the 'A' policy covered this risk. as cunicmplalcd Z 5 under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hei_'e_inaI'ter referred to as 'the Act' fur brevity) and that it does not the insurer to euver the risk of 1: occupant ulia private er iaaiin i "

the present case. The Tribunal has ofJei*i(.ie!<eedi--.Atheii i and thewlbre, the appeals would haveit¢)AiiegieIiut§e--¢'A~ . 2 ii The question is no longer fe>iiV:.ii2tegrai'as_ it by the latest judgement of the Oriental Insunmce Conqzuvgv V and others reportedigin 'While considering the law as iaid down in the teasev _ Assumnce Ccmqvany Lintited vs. 223, it was held that a gratuitous passenger i'~in«,£i"vgtxxis vehicle was not covered by contract of of Seetiun 147 of the Act and aim white iv.eenside:'ii1g the decision in Urzilecl India Imurwzce Company t vs. Tilak Singh and alhers 2006(4) SC 3 404 which ' fagtended the principle laid down in Ashe Rani ease to all other ' categories of the vehicle in the lblluwing manner: 5 6

"In our view, although the observations rmzde in Asha Ram' .

case were in carmectior: with wrryirag passengers in goods' vehicle, the same would' apply with equal forjgjg V. gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. '.3 'i is i must uphoid the contention of the azppeilamt. Company that it owed no liabiiityfi Mtiﬁviiiifcfltf the " V' stgﬁﬁzred by the deceased Rajinder Siiigh i A rider, as the insurarwe ;mli:,jvV was' a cxwizgiﬂ hence it did not cover the risk Qfor Vbaiilvi agratzzitouspassengera «V * .. ..

And this has been _ } iibuvc judgement in Sudhakurarfs casc_3m_3d bl" law is I'orm'al}y sclticd __ wimld have to be allowed an the fact: of it. A

4. {he Trcspundcsnls in the respective appeals place rcliumx: on earlier judgements which no since lht: Supreme Court with the above

-V ° has taken a clear View as [0 {ha liability towards of a vehicle under the poliuy issued to cover the ﬁslc as eiégniéinplaied under the Act. Thcrcfore, the appeals are allowed. '4 The liability, insufar as the sag is fastened on the appcilunl, is set.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court