Karnataka High Court
M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co ... vs N M Rajaprakash S/O Late Mutha Raj on 5 March, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2010 (2) AIR KANT HCR 592, 2010 A I H C 2789, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 80 (KAR.), (2011) 1 KANT LJ 616, (2010) 4 ACJ 2706
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 5*" DAY OF MARCH, 2015..§fj~..'_:'~~--,_
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N,;V.EN_UGOF5ALi$r.§3dV!i§fA "
M.F.A No.492 o~;_;go_g'
C/W_ '
M.F.A. CROB.No.4=1_of 2009 .'.Mv)_
M.F.A.N0.492[2009
BETWEEN:
M/s. Bajaj Allianz Gener'a'i" -
Insurance Co{n'p'anTy Ltd__.,g A .
No.105/A--1OT,/4A,5f _ ears '.°_|az..a, V
136, Residencx/'Roa'd~-,. " _ r
Ban9a|0T¢ -a"'5.60T3:25- "
By its Zoavisarenial Mé;§Vnager..;' 1
Represented by"vau_thoTrisecf"~sEgnatory
Senior Legal Ex--Ce'Cs}_C'tiv'e..__"-.
A V _ ; ..APPELLANT
(By Srnt. H.'R.R'en.u;ka,"v.Ad'v.)
A. .....
' 1.-. " N. oM';--vF§'a3:a'p:ra'i<.ash,
. V«.S/o.'v-late 1'/i.Ut%éa Rag,
'Aged aboj_utH:'35 years,
R,/ata._No.~1--4, S~HIG--A,
1" B|'oCi<, 3"" Floor,
_ ;Yelah»a'ni<a New Town,
V 5"? Phase, Bangalore ~-- 64.
' A.Somaiah, S/o. M.S.Appaiah,
r No.230/32, 3" A Main,
Near Ayyappa Temple,
Venkatapura, Koramangata,
BangaEore ~-- 34.
(By Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, Adv. for R1; 0 _
R2 service is held sufficient v.o.dated 17.03.2009)
MFA No.492/2009 is filed under Section--1173'(1T)--..oi"._._g'0.
MV Act against the Judgment and award dated 19.0?";.2008-«. _
passed in MVC No.1495/2007 on the fiie-'"of""\!_1'IE'AddE.; 0'
Judge, Court of Smail Causes, Member,"M_A'CT;'Ba'n-gagiore,
SCCH--5, awarding a compensation of"R's.9Q,'70O,/-0' ..i/x<.igt'fif.:
kl
IRESPONDENTS
interest @ 6% pa. from thedate of ';:etitiont.".ttjEA'i'vd'e;:>'osit exciuding future medicai expen_s'e~sz of Rs}10,.00'0/~;,g~--v... M.F.A Crob.No.44 of 2009 BETWEEN:
Sri. N.M.Rajaprak_a--sVh, V S/o. Eate..M.uthag'V'Ra§1.__ _ Aged about 343/ears,' _ ' R/at No;..14,-. S-HIG¥A,'t 1" B!oci<,V3""'-Floorf' Yeiahankatsew To'w_n}. = 5"' Phase, Ba'ng_a§ea'.e-- ~?64."
" "(By".:3tt1t:,-e\/ijeftgha R{jN"a'I'k', Adv.) E
1. A44.Somaia_-ta,"
S/0. 'M.S'.Appaiah, . No.2.3_G/32, 3" A Main, 3 " our-tear Ayyappa Temple, _ v _\/efinkatapura, Koramangaia, Bangalore ---- 34.
"CROSS OBJECTOR
2. The Division Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., No.105/A--107/A, Cears Plaza, 136, Residency Road, Bangalore --- 560 025.
(By Smt. l-l.R.Renul<a, Adv. for R2}:
..-aaisp,oiiip%:m+srl i MFA Crob.No.44/2009 is filed um 4l1'iVll,r<;§lll'e:._ 22 of CPC, against the Judgme'ra.t 'and ,»award dVateid_'*. 19.07.2008 passed in MVC l\l.o'.=1_495/"200?on t--he"'fil'e of "
vm Addl. Judge, Court of smau'causes,-Member, MACT, Bangalore, SCCH--S, partly allow.ing the clairnapetition for compensation and see":<.i4_ng er.'_hancemen't«.o_f compensation. This appeal and,,_,_VCro5.vs_V :Obj'e,cti':ojn having been reserved, the Couit _delj'vered, the««.fo.l,J_owin.g':
s 531.,-1';'~_VJ"_ul'_i);<i.....":3:;'._E7.,_L~l T» (petitionerfwas-._ta'«l:.'A'peci*e'stri.an crossing Infantry Road, Bangalore, a.VForti"car.E:ea'ring registration No.KA--O1--B--S28 itsadfirivervllrlashiy and negligently, dashed against aireisult he sustained injuries such as Type-~I V"r:'}ultiplev.a'brasions.
corn-pound fraicture of both bones of right forearm and 1 %/.
2. The offending car beionged to one A.So_r_naiah (insured/owner). The car was insured with Bajaj"~.lAili:an'z Generai Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer). On being of the accident, the Cubbon Pari<__.po3,ice re.g'is't'ea.r'jed""a.4_cas'e, it against the driver of the offendin:grve'hiic'l'e Gowda (driver) for offences pu'r'u~§.sVhable uriderlv.SAecti'ons"j279 " if & 337 I.P.C. and prosecuted
3. A claim petitio-nA,\Vv.i,as jyrilea"ifistiiee MACT under Section 166 qrmqiian ii/Iotori~':Vehi:cl*esAct, 1988 (for short 'the Act') 'a.ndu"i.n'surer of the offending car, foirfawarvdlngifa_:coiT'ip'ensationV of Rs.5,oo,ooo/-. The owner of the car:'d'ViAd._not:lAappear and was placed exparte.
The insurerélfiled its staternent of objections. Issuance of ""~..._p0li~c_v°* Qf i.nzsuran'C"e"""ivn respect of passenger carrying ,_cobrn_ri:er'oi.all-v'ehi'cle - taxi, was admitted. However, it was cont.endeVd.'tiiat: the liability, if any, is limited to the terms "rand con_cli'tions of the policy and as per Section 147 of the aijd valid & effective driving licence of the driver to ll")-fjjldriive passenger carrying commercial vehicle. It was E. further contended that the driver of the said vehicle__being not holder of a valid and effective driving licence,'it_::'i-shot liable to indemnify the insured.
4. Taking into considetraitionv the 'nj.aLte'riaVi:~ pleadings, MACT raised the issuesf.AF5etitione.r.; PW--1. Doctor who treated"s<s.:l1i»m rivospital deposed as PW-2. Exs;i?;1 'police records and Exs.P--5 to Ex.P-1:'-ill records, were marked. and Exs.R-1 to Ex.R-4,, "the rival contentions, the Trviiblulnaifi'held;Ilthatj,"the accident has taken place on accounlt'-of4'.actioVn'a.Vl§jVlBl'n--.egi'ii2~ence on the part of driver of the offending V_car.Vand'v.as"°'a result the petitioner sustained ~._inju:cri'es:,_-and» zhence'i's"'entitled to be compensated. 7"_~v_v..Tii§e"V"contention of the insurance company reg'a'rdih§. its nonwliability based on the evidence of RW~1 & Ex.R--4 has been considered by the MACT is held as follows:
/Q "Ex.R--4 discloses that driver of car was having driving"
licence as on the date of accident to drive light motor vehicle (NT) onlv. Though the policy Ex.R-1 describes the vehicle as commercial vehicle, but the said vehicle was a car is not in dispute.fRW.--_l ' cross-examination has admitted that"c*a;f;.. which is involved in the accident is a :passenge"1'._veAhic_leand is a light motor vehicle, In viewiof thisV_-v_admi'ssi*or1..of RW--1, it is clear thatlluvnder EX'.R--4 _diiver._:lSh.iv*anna*at Gowda was authorized tolldriveu the"car_,l'wh1'V}.ch comes under light motor .
l l l 'V '{u"nde--rlining by me}
6. Attlehiteferring to the-1tw.Q_mi:iecisions on which reliance v}as.:j_'4l'Diléc"ed» dither l'e3ai"'ned counsel for the insuralsce has held as follows:
the .ev1"zflenc.e on record establishes that the l§j_.iver of thecarhad driving licence to drive light motor §;eg}.icie (NT) and when the car in question comes under it motor vehicle, the contention of second ' as to its liabilitv cannot be accepted. EX'.F'.~«l'l discloses that policy has been issued in respect " 'Ford Icon car and the same was valid as on the date it of the accident. The description of the car as commercial vehicle under Ex.R~ 1 does not come in the wav of holding the driver of the car possessing valid la driving licence as the date of accident in question. Hence, respondent Nos.1 8: 2 are jointiy and setieifaily liabie to pay the compensation amount to H the pEtitio11er."
(unde1"it11*i-Jig. byarrre) " = MACT assessed the compensiatioiniarnoiunt Rs.90,700/- with interest and_T'p.asseAd' the_Va>wfa'r.¢I""against " it both the insured and the insiirer'.v--_fi\~g,.grieVe'd,..,.thv:§ insurer has filed the appeals""iiPet-it_ivo.ner""'has:h'filed the cross objection.
7. is certifi»caVte~cum~po|icy of insurariiceiiiv question was insured for the period i'9rorn 06.08.2007. The policy is a commerciai"\»r_ehi~ci'e "'-package policy. The registration 'JV."'-cert'i~-ii:ca--te and thewrinvotor vehicle taxation card of the c/_veijic'Ie.,i:'ri._q'ues.tion in the relevant columns shows that it is a 'i'uxury~taj§o"';iThe said records contain an endorsement to '--the fol'loi;i}'ing effect:
it < "The vehicle shall not be converted as a light motor vehicle M motor car for (1 period of three years from the date of registration j/ /-5
8. Smt.E-l.R.Renui<a, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that, in view of the facththat the registration certificate and also the policy of insurance (Ex.R~1) having clearly mentioned that question is a commercial vehicle andmas the'd"ri'vé'i*,ther'eof,c_ "
was not possessing a licence whicl'i._wa_srv--a|id_fo~r:"drivih--g transport vehicle, the impugned4-gigudgrraelnt/award»..jfa.stening the liability on the appellant is__i_ll"eg_all_V_She"contended that on the facts established...':&.AD«--rQ\{ea,--4file'"appellant/insurer has no liability to.i.ndemnlfy.the'i-ngs»ured_.
--. Learned.:'adv'ocat.e' appearing on behalf of the petitioner'/tzrossvv o'bje'cto»r,:'"on the other hand, vehemently contended that] driver of the car had effective driving lice.nce -dA'ri~vi_ng a light motor vehicle and it did not maxtter V'as'"_'to 'whether it was a transport vehicle - taxi. V. Learried"--V:Acoiu'Vnsel further contended that the amount the Tribunal is not just compensation. He . urgediilfor re--appreciation of the evidence on record and to T "pass a just award.
10. Keeping in view the rival contentions, I have perused the records. The points for determination are;
1. Whether on the facts established, MACT is justified in fastening the /iah.i_Iit'y_"i- "
on the insurer to indemnify the insuhed?" " h
2. Whether the compensation assessed:'and~ awarded by the ;"MACT.V compensa tion ?
Rg--Qoin; No.1:
11. Sections 2.("1~Q), 2i(i'4~j',.;'arj'd.._2(21)""'of"'the Act contain the meanings of 'tr;-ieipwovrds iicence', 'goods carriage' and 'i.ig'h.t 'motor vyehiciehrespectivelv 5DD€a|'in9 in the within its umbrage both 'transport "vehiciei' or'.f0m:'_riibus'. A distinction between an effectijii/'ei'~|icenc'e«»_g_rar1ted for transport vehicie and passer.geu=.pmot-or vehicie exists, to which a reference wouid be rn.a'de' in'fra}';= 12-.» 'Section 3 mandates the necessity for driving ' .,,iice.:i._Ce. in terms of subsection (1) thereunder, no person s'ha'l3"drive a motor vehicle in any pubiic piace uniess he i/ I 0 holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor car or mot'oyr"-cyclle hired for his own use or rented under any scih_eni:e.,:rnadé'_<'i under subsection (2) of Section"975*unilessi'h'i:._clri-iiinpjg licence specifically entitles him to A.
13. Section 9 is with to'"gra_n.t of driving licence. Section 10 and contents of licences to drive. Differentfclassesfiaofv;v.e'i'iicle have been stated under. d..iffefr":e_.ntprovzisions oflltlhefict.
-. 'iight motor vehicle' and 'transport',vehiclef'lisp therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may bne"aV:lVi_ght: motor vehicle, but, for the purpose »ofi--d_riv_i:ngsame, a distinct licence is required to be of the Statute. The distinction between 'V 'transport"vehicie' and 'passenger vehicle' can also be riioticedlwfrom Section 14. Sub-section (2)§hereof provides duration of a period of three years in case of effective "driving licence to drive 'transport vehicle' whereas in case 2% E1 of any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.
15. Both the driver and the owner of ~ car did not examine themselves in,.the4caseV.""""FAh'e driving-,_V K"
licence of S.K.Shivanna Gowda - the RW-1 deposed that, the car"iin"'~..gVuesti'~on is iregf'i§st'er.edi as 'V L' passenger carrying corn__rraerciaI_._vehi_cie_,n(ta$&i)'vvhich can be driven by a driver holding«licenceftjotransport vehicle and that the only light motor vehicle' Act, he is termed as non;-'llicencVe.e._V under the policy as at §x.R:'.'-L. the insured, the driver who drivesthe car _(taxi.) s'haii"'have valid and effective driving "'"«I,icencé to drive thé""Said ciass of vehicle and if not, the !,ia'ble to indemnify the insured. He deposed thatpdriver'iyiizo caused the accident had licence (Ex.R~4) dri",»,ie'i~ light motor vehicle (NT) under licence "~iit\io.,1'f3*:v:1/2002 valid from 26.11.2002 to 31.05.2021. Rlliil further deposed that, since the insured by entrusting / 1;
12 the car has consciously violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liVaE§le"r.to indemnify the insured for the violation of provisioiis'.V'o.fj:the _ Act and the terms & conditions of the policy.....I.nftVhel.:crossf"
examination of RW--1, it has been eiiiciitjed'-i_th,at-,--:
which is involved in the acci.de_nt, isja'passen'gVer4_vehicle and that it is a light motor vehiclii'e;V' RW1 denied the suggestion that, is no classification as He has pointed out that n:g"':lV.i'ce--n«V;::Ae, it is written as non--transpo€rt. consistent with Ex.R--1 8: Ex.R~?g'_i. been elicited in the cross-- examinationto evidence of RW--1.
The lice'nc:e'Vgranted in favour of the driver as show that the same was granted for a vehigzlle otheflthan a transport vehicle. It is vaiid from "*-.__.__ii2,6.11.2oo:: to 31.05.2021. Section 2.4 (2) (3) provides lafdriving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall 'case of Eicence to drive a transport vehicle wiil be ls the MACT has failed to notice the material provisions of the Act and has erred in the matter of orderingT"the indemnification of the insured by the Insurance
17. Smt.H.R.Renuka, is right..i.ri c-;;fit'¢h5'ing"'t'i%iat;., the Tribunal has committed a mate'i'ii'aii-errior in the ratio of the decision in thedciaae ofAi\ieyv Indi,a 'as's'urance " ' Co. Ltd, Vs. Prabhu tcai, [(2:ooi"8j)i1isii..scc "e96],f has no application to the instant;case?Von.""Vh:a.n:d»;_ In the said decision, the effect __of terms of in terms of the provisions :of__E§ectioini_:2_t(:i<}_) a'ndv'2V(_4"'7"j has been noticed and heljjuadsv tmd.er: '72' "30}' Now,' oi' the Insurance Company that the vehicle of thecomplainant which met with an vwiaccident xivas .a___'_'_transport vehicle". It was submitted thjeginsured vehicle was a "goods carriage" and ~th'os"ea:_?i!Ttransport vehicle". The vehicle was driven .§\iarain, who was authorized to drive light R°n1o't:ordv"ehicie and not a transport Vehicle. Since the _ driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not have driven Tata 709 and when that Vehicle met with an accident, the Insurance /.2' 15 Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.
XXXXXXXXX
27. The argument of the Insurance C'on1p.a_1'1yl"isv"thatV at the time of accident, Ram had f effective licence to drive 'l"ata 'l7O_9:"._indisp_u.tab1y, Narain was having a llicence to 'drive motor " ' vehicle. The learned counsel for" Insurance Company, refern1ig~~..to pr'ovjisionsl'AoiA'Vv the Act submitted that if 1i_Qence to drive light motor vehicle,-'he transport vehicle unless his s'p'ecifixc'al--l*i': entitles him to do so c1at;sés._'lA14':~:.: £21), (28) and (47) of Sec.tionlVV':2,rnai:e.. it 'clear that..if"a vehicle is "light motor E_C:;1'1iC1l?.",nVb\'i,_3v'f;.,.lEllS'~,ti11dC1".'the categorv of transport vehicle; thecwpdrii/in;E~..liceiice has to be dulv endorsed underSecvtion-__3Aof' the Act. If It is not done, a person __§hold.in,q d'1"isriii,q licence to 131V ljglgt motor vehicle V" carinotd' plv transport vehicle. it is not in dispute that " T "in"t3r1&e iristant case. Ram Narain was having licence to lhxdrive motor vehicle. The licence was not Venclorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Tata ?O9 In absence of requisite endorsement A it and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. \'3./' [N 16
38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held tha_tl"the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was coveljed' all x category of transport vehicle under Clause ' Section 2 of the Act. Section Iyimtherefofe;reouired the driver to have an endorsement wpould-.e.nltitle him to DIV Such vehicle. V it is Air-.ot'even case ¢E'thé'< complainant that therellwas such endorseinent 'and * it Ram Narain was allowed to'i«ply.transport "vehicle. On the contrary, the 'case of.thei.:®Ii§p1ainanltl'Awas that it was Mohd. Julfikar the vehicle. To us, therefore.' theyifiiistrictl in holding that Rani leouildlnot have'--d:iven the vehicle in q..ues__tionl."'-" , _ it ' u "
The lcopurt dis_tinfgui.silf:ed its earlier judgment in Ashok 'C3angadh'arV_ll\/ilaratha V. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd, l:'{{i..A99*3«}A.{6} secmooi stating:
judgment, Ashok Gangadhar did not lay l"l.--._«downatlriatllthe driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It it was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the insurance "Company neither pleaded nor proved that the vehicle was transport vehicle by placing on record the permit 37 issued by the Transport Authority that the Insurance Company was heid Iiable."
[emphasis suppiied 'fay: 2,
18. It is estabiished that the offending":'v.eh'icieVVi'4is a7 taxi and thus, a commerciai vehicle.
drove the offending car on the dateof :a'cciden't';i_ .:'I\V'io"do*ub't he had a driving licence. DrivEn'g:i.icence,"hoivveiveirivgiiranted to him was for driving afight (i\rrj'ohiy. The insurer raised the purview of subsection (2) the vehicle in question is driver was required to hold iicence to drive the car.
S.K.Shivanna_Gowda.*«--'_'d.river, as noticed herein before, It was haider of iicence to drive a iight motor vehicie (NT) "0n,iy'_~t.. §»ié'"did"' not possess any licence to drive a commercial 1veVhi_cciei'. ..V:':-«..Evid.e,ntiy, therefore, there was a breach of conAd---§.tion_,-ofCthe contract of insurance and hence, the xv'"--__VVa;:ipei!ant:i'nsurer is not liable to indemnify the insured/ _ ha-wa._rd.«:
5,/' 18 Rg-aging; $39.2:
19. Ex.P~5 -~ the wound certificate discioseis._:t'h_at.,,v petitioner sustained Type I open fracture of right forearm. PW~2 has deposed.,abou_-tn'the'_jinj'urieVs.--_ Ex.P--6 is the discharge summary.
Ex.P--13 and Ex.P--14 estab'i'ish---....the"A'vsus:aini.:n'gV.i._;of...said fracture by the petitioner of accident. Petitioner took at Hospital and later as an inpatienvt at :Hos.n5atViii.ovsp'iétaiV.:ifionsidering the nature of and suffering undergone,thefcofrnippeiuisatiiobiw"can be awarded under the head"paincandfs:uffe'r'inc3"-is Rs.25,000/--.
20. has deposed that he spent Rs.40,§Qt)0;'-- touwairdswyyrnedical expenses and incidentai A*__VchVarg_es,.,:_the.,:ibii_is produced, which are at Exs.P--9 and Ex;is;1o,iairiooyiotbto Rs.3,300/-- only. Petitioner being a *VGovern;fn'ent"'.V servant had the facility of medical "'V.:rei'rnb»ursement by the empioyer. Though he has stated did not ciaim reimbursement, the very fact that he 19 did not produce the original medical bills (except Exs.P9 & P10) indicates that he might have produced the same before his employer and might have obtained'.',:.:"th.e reimbursement. Hence, other than the bills at Ex.P«1O for Rs.3,300/~, he is ,for"
reimbursement. He was an inpatient:.,f4or;. éi._d:a_ys. Hosmat Hospital. Considering: the incidental he is entitled to incidental charge's"l'i'a:t'v'RsV.4,7O0']:--;.v': llijfvidwence of PW--2 shows that he a.ddv'i's'etl:4..peti'tionerVVtouundergo surgery for removal of i\;pa'ceV;;v'vl.towards future medical expens'es,j;theré--.'can'be"'p_rovi's~§on for payment of Rs.10,o7oo/=.--
21. isd~t_he~.--"':salary siip which shows that *=._petit'igc;"fl€,_'{t:was draw-i--n--g' salary of Rs.7,700/-- per month. i"s..__th_e~ leave availment certificate. Petitioner has availecl ea.rné:{d'n:'leave for 30 days. Though there is an Vd'=___'aadmissi~on'; regarding receiving of salary during leave 5lpeArio'o'~,_. the earned leave being encashabie, having been is
-«r 20 made use of, there is loss of salary income of one month i.e., Rs.7,700/-, which he is entitled to be compensaVti:¥1:.c_l".»...
22. Petitioner has deposed regarding.-pe'r;'n.a'nerit.._T'. disability. PW--2, orthopaedic surgeon has"'a's--s.E:ss"edv"the:' permanent disability of petitioner 36%..toA'particularflii..n'f'iai_if and 12% to the whole body.' -Petitiorielr is servant. He continues to be in:ernn_p!oyn1:er.tV._:fiBe:c§ause of accidental injuries, petitioriers'_Vjse,;fitvi'c'e_'c.orrd_itions are not in any way altered._Therev_is...no~. and other emoluments._ be considered as loss in the future ea rningca r.
23. Evidence of shows that, on account of ofthe ilnjuries in the accident, he has difficulty V°':.'o"hold lift weight, pull or push, since his right hand_,:'has,.bec:or'ne weak. Evidence of PW~--2 shows that, the l"-.-e.__"movem'en_ts of right forearm is restricted and is painful and "'thait,_.there is healed surgical scar present at the fracture as a result of which, PW-1 cannot lift heavy object 1 E % ~37 21 with right hand. Keeping in view the evidence of both PW- : & PW-2, it can be held that, petitioner suffers from unhappiness to some extent while doing his riormal activities. Hence, under the head loss of amen~it«l.e_s,.'__"he' entitled to compensation of Rs.40,000/--.
24. Considering the evidence,' ;on_ Tribunal has correctly asse_ssedbHth'e loss'§..:fl"he compensation which the pe"ti..t:ioner lerltitled to is Rs.90,700/--. No enhancaemer'tb of',Aco.rJj.ple--nsation'Ain the facts and circumstances of thievcase fca!'l*ed'fo;r.,'.'--- For the" blforegoiing €,r'e:asons',:7'"appeal filed by the insurance--.compaifsv'sta'r*.»d:s"'-allowed and the liability cast on it in the impugned .'allvar:bd'_,»s»s'tands set--aside. However, the _ owneruof the c'a'rV..is_liable to satisfy the award. The amount 492/O9 be refunded to the appellant 't~hAere'i n P Vfnsuyravnce Com pa ny.
.CEV2:',oss';ob3'ection of the petitioner is devoid of merit if "},,a.1d..,_shall stand dismissed. In the circumstances, both the llpartibes are directed to bear their respective costs. Si,/~ FEDQE Ksj/--