Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Chandra S/O K Manjunathayya vs M/S National Insurance Co on 19 March, 2010
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1
MFA NO.75I5/2004 C/W.
MFA N(>.7l66/2004 C/W.7167/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA13O:'RE.V
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF' MARCH "
PRESENT 'u V v '
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.
AND .. V . ..
THE HONELE Dr. S
M.E.;A1No.75'1'5;?2'5itj4_2 '
c/w.M;i4';}§;1\I§;.7fi66@®4v'~
C/w.M.F.:A§N0.:'f16'?/v2_(fid?1
Sr1'.Ramesh Chandra; '
S / 0.Sr1.K.ManJunathay'ya,..
No.6, Ma)/Ur Niva's,. *
III Cross,"/1~Fh Main, " V
_ . ..Cha1naf;;aJpet, ______ H
Bangal0re'%5BO O18. ...APPELLANT
{By S.Pfi3_hai1}:aT-, senior counsel]
' AND5
. M / s.NaVt1A-banal Insurance Co.,
Divisiorial Office--II,
';\I,o_.6'2;«_, Laibagh Mission Road.
_ 'fiathl Complex,
" Banga1ore--55O 02?,
....Rep. by D1v1s1onaI Manager.
\\.»$
' ~ . _W,/ o;«S1fi. Ramesohehandra,
Bangaloref5'6O 018.
2
MFA No.7E315/2004 C/W.
MFA NOT/166/2004 C/W.7167/2004
2. Kumari. Ranjitha,
D / o.Smt.Renuka,
No.16, Mayur Nivas.
III Cross, 4th Main,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore~«56O O 18,
Minor, Rep. by mother I
& natural guardian Smt.Renuka. =
{By Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv.' for Rw
Sri.Ravishankar, Adv. for R52}
This appeal is filed u/s.V.l'73.{'Vl') of, MV Act against the
Judgment & Award dt.29_.5...o4 7passed..V_ir1_'MVC no.5014/O1 on
the file of the Member, Pr.'1'»/£ACTs_&'»Chief:J11dge, Court of Small
Causes, Bangalore {SCH5_1"} partly ""a1lo*-fling & awarding
compensation of "Rs_.82,-.'J'83'/witlr1}.interest at 6% p.a., 8:
directing the appe_lglant lf«_ereiri' to" deposit" the same and the
appellant herein uprtayfs "to: set. aside' the above Judgment &
award & to inodily the »awa;1~d by" fixing the liability only on
Respondent_VNo';.l /'Irisuranoe__Coinpari;*5.
' ,5'i»¥i,;F;A.-ixi§'.'7"166/2004 BE'l'WEE,.N;
Agedabeugt =34 N o. 1 6 ,~ -- _May*ur_~ Nivjas, ' l' III Cross, 4Fh.Ma.in, _ChamarajpVet, 'V "
. . APPELLANT Sri";S.P.Shankar, senior counsel 'for M/s.SPS Associates, Advsj " ''r;FTv&éEN~:..
3 MFA No.7515/2004 C/W. MFA No.7166/2004 C/W27167/2004 AND:
1. M/s.National insurance Co., Divisional Office--II, No.64, Lalbagh Mission Road, Sathi Complex, Bangalore-560 027, Rep. by Divisional Manager.
2. Sri.Ramesh Chandra.
S / 0. Sri.K. Majunathayya.
No.6, Mayur Nivas, III Cross, élfih Main, Chamarajpet, ' " * ' Banga1ore--560 018. _ ...RESP_QNDENTS (By Sri.A.N.KrishnasWamy",-- :l=\gdvl;. R~:.'l"--,l.:':t .. _ SI'i.S.N.Basavaraju, Adv._for'R--:2) ' This appeal_ is» "filed ~ur_1d'e.1i See} 73(1) of MV Act against the Judgment .a&*iAward" {it..29..5.04'tpa'ssed in MVC No.5013/01 on the f11_E'.w0f _th~e M'e:a_1.ber,. Prl. NiAC.T'& Chief Judge, Court of Small Cz1uses,l'*E%angalore<4(SCCH-~1] partly allowing the claim petition 7._for= ' con':;5enSa,ti.on_*~ <31 ' seeking enhancement of compensation'; "
v..M.é';A.'1\fo.7167/2004
'KurnVa1*1'... " j.
D/"o..SI_1f;.t. Renjuka. ' ' ' No. 1 (3. May! 11' Nivas, 111 Cross, 431 Main, _ . g_ .2 Chamarajpet, _' " 2 "Ba1:g3§ore¥560 018, Minor, Rep. by mother _ «S: natural guardian Smt.Renuka. ...APPELLANT I '['}3y"Sri. S. P.Sh.ankar, senior counsel] 5 MFA No.75 15/2004» C/W. MFA N40."/166/2004 C/W.7167/2004 173(1) of the Act praying to saddle ' 3££/1/bi3i1',y under theaward on the Respondent No.1 / Insurance Company by modtfyidn'gpthe Judgment and Award dated 29.05.2004 n1a.d;ei-- N05014/2001.
2. Appeal in MFA No.7166/2004 is.'_'fi1ed eiettmeiet in MVC No.5013/2001 on the'fiie_ of "ehtet,Jt;;ei"ge,'v«cqu?rt ere"-.i* Small Causes, Bangalore.' under___}S"ec:tio..n_p the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in enhancement of compensation by m.odify1_n Award dated 29.05.2004 made aieoye
3. No.5014/2001 on the file of Chief'tJ_utd.ge. Causes, Bangalore, has filed appeal fin 'Ne:-2167/S2004 under Section 173(1) of the Act praying'. for e'11hancenient of compensation and direct the to pay the entire compensation to the claitnant v'b3*_tIiodif3ring the Judgment and Award dated ' '««.2'9.O5.20'O.4tn1ade in the above said case. Since these three appeals are directed against .:'j':(";(3';;"1rn0I1 Judgment anfiward dated 29.05.2004 made in MVC 6 MFA No.75l5/2004 C/W. MFA No.7E66/2004 C/W."/'16?/2004 No.5013 and 5014 of 2001, heard common arguments and these appeals are disposed of by this Judgment.
5. For the purpose of convenience understanding, the appellants in _M.E.'A_ Nofi'?'l'6'€§:,?:2dO4'_'_xanclifif 7167 / 2004 are hereinafter referred as_"'ithe appellant in MFA No.7515/200:4_"'is hereinafterl'».referered -to the owner--curn--driver of the car. _ _v _ V
6. The brief facts of._t:heA to the filing of the appeal may be stated as un-derji V On~26.at about. '2."3{)-- when the claimants were travelling Registration No.KA--O4/N» 6710 driven' theV'o_vtrt:r.er»r;;iirn--driVer and proceeding towards ..Some»shwara, in the .pr_c__>_cess of saving a calf which came on the the.."of___the car went and dashed against a tree. As a resu:l.t=o'f viz.. wife and daughter of the owner
-of the car sustained grievous injuries. The claimant wife f_E.'arn';'t.i1?2e&nul§a (in MVC No.5013/2001] filed claim petition . compensation of Rs. 10. O0 ,000 / --. The T "--.:fc1'airna:1t/daughter in LIEIVC N05014:/2001 sought for 7 MFA N0.75I5/2004 C/W. MFA N0.7i66/2004» c/w.7167/2004 compensation of Rs.5,00,000/~. The Respondent No.1/Insurance Company entered appearance and file;'i.\l2i/ritten statement denying the averments of the . sought for dismissal of the same. The...0v_\_rner_«anti the ll"
car in question did not enter appea4raricc.--h'befo_re the" claiiits Tribunal. The Tribunal framedissues. ll 'InsupporiA..yof.Vthe_.3case,i* of the claimants, the clpaimanty_:l:l_ifi. 2001 got herself examined on her behalf of minor daughter/claimantin has got herself examined as been examined as P.W.3 in Both the cases were clubbed Waslrecorded. The respondents have not adduced any-lllrehutital"evidence. The claims Tribunal. after hearing largurnlents and perusing evidence placed on record, caineltopa conclusion that the accident occurred due to driving of the car by its driver and partly 9' allowed V_ti'ie.j:claim petitions awarding compensation of 3"-'~.__Rs:2,27,"soo/-- and Rs.82,083/- with costs and interest at the l 6% pa, from t-he date of petition till realization. in No.50l3/2001, the liability is imposed on the owner and ft!' 8 MFA N07515/2004 C/W. MFA N07166/2004 C/W.7167/2004 insurer, but the claim petition in MVC No.5014/200:1 was dismissed as against the insurer. Thus. the cIaim_ant"s, and owner--cum--driVer of the Vehicle in question ar_e3__bet'c:fe----' . Court. J _
7. Learned counsel appearilngltfor t'hg=,- " ».ci'ain1ants~.V_ submitted that the Tribunal not i--.gw'arti_ed"gjadecluatelVV compensation towards a1}~~:1fre heads' clornpenlsatiorblj Further, no compensation is awarded future earning capacity, medical. loss of earning during the It is also contended that thg,/claimant;ginV'-M*ll§}--.llNo§50l3l/2001 was operated for removal spent a sum of Rs.20,000/-- in Shekhar Hospital -gJa~_-janagar, Bangalore. He has prayed for . «awarding _co-nf1pens"atiQ_n as prayed for in the claim petition. . 38. counsel for Respondent No.1/Insurance :llsu_b1nitted that there is no good ground for . enhancenfienoof compensation and as per the terms of the .policy. Insurance Company is not liable to pay L 1G MFA N0.'75l5/2004 C:/W. MFA N0.7166/2004 C/w.7167/2004»
ix) CDJ 2009 SC 990 [BHAGYALAKSHMI 8: OTHERS V/s.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., & ETC.)
9. Learned counsel for the owner--cuni -driveir V the car in? question submitted that the Vehicle invlquestion ljcovereci' comprehensive insurance policy "there is of the terms and conditions of tE1e..V_poliCyllandj th"e..lnsurar1ce'Vv(3ornpany is bound to indemnify the in question. It is contended that':.ey-'en ~thevd"_je_lainijar1ts are wife and daughter, theyllare.eiititled:,fo:r""cornpensation as third party in terms of C'haptef;. and 3.-.li"--olf l'/Io'tor"l\fehicles Act. In support of the case of the mfehicle in question, his counsel has cited the following AIR 1998 .... so 1433 {AMRIT LAL soon AND _ -ANu{m_«1ER V/s. SMTKAUSHALYA DEVI THAPAR & it on the point that insurer agreed to V. .ind_.etnnify the insured against all sums which Vlaipinsured becomes liable to pay in respect of death or bodily injury to "any person" which includes occupant of car who is gratuitously travelling. L iii] 11 MFA N0.7515/2004 C/W. MFA NO.7l56/2004 C/W.716'7/2004 I999 ACJ I499 [ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/SAJAYAKUMAR] On :1;'e»._I>0.irIt that a passenger traveiiing in a priyra,.te» gratuitousiy is covered. by an act p--o:1ic3?A.and"ttii'e V' Insurance Company is iiable to pay"comipensatiorII,v " "
2008 ACJ 2814 (1CICixV DCMBARD INSURANCE COMIéA.NY 'V/$'.'I.°.._SI;IAEEN.,:i» GAUTHAMBHAI VA14A'A'ND_ O"I'I»IEI§S')": Onlithe point that package" ~..po1icy""'shI§w wider"co"verage to include the 1°is'k'of.thev the vehicle. 2000 « CACJ §;AA1Q39.«i (NEW 'R VINDIA ASSURANCE C.ONIpA;:W;_ ..V/S. if.'RAI.ENDRA SINGH AND gratuitous passenger in ima"'pr*§yate:fV'Vjce:p»._I)vhen_"VVrnet with accident due to i1egEigenc'e.:O§ the Insurance Company is A'heldv1iabieL:' » if _A it A _ 1999 "AC3" '"1524 (ORIENTAL INSURANCE CvQMPaNY"*LTD. V/S. RADHA RANI AND OTHERS) "~o'n_t"'ne_ point "any person" covers an occupant who Carried Without hire or reward in a private car. '£221.
2606 ACJ 983 [ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ' Vv/s. PURUSHOTHAM AND OTHERS] on the point that on the death of a passenger in a private car due to rash and negligent driving, the risk is L 12 MFA No.7515/2004 c/w.
MFA No.7166/2004 c/W716'?/2004 cornpulsorily covered under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Insurance Company is held liable.
i
10. In View of the arguments addressed V' counsels for the parties, we forrnulateihe'following:points. for it our consideration:
Whether the claimantein *No'.cE";lO1é;§/2001 on the file of Chief Juedg'e"o.:f Court ofS'n1a"ll Causes, Bangalore 'conipensation as prayed V for in the Claim petiti'on?". "
\zsriVi§ev.+,1;1é':.%_: the lrgigimant in M No.5014/2001 on the'Cf1le.._oAf.Ci1.ief.§L1._dge of Court of Small Causes, C B-angaloi-e'~.c'i"tyf"»»is..--~ entitled for compensation as
- iii) , prayed for in claim petition?
'Wl';ethler"thelclaims Tribunal is justified in holding a of the claimant in MVC No.5014/2001 on of Chief Judge of Court of Small Causes, ~Bangalore, is not covered under the Insurance 2 policy?
= jI~;z) What order?
1 1. Our finding to the above points is as under: L .13 MFA N0.7515/2004 c/W. MFA No.7166/2004 c/w.7167/2004 Point Nos. 1 and 2: Partly in the affirmative Point No.3: In the negative Point No.4: As per final order
12. Point No.1: In support ofv3the:"caseS'of the ciaimaifxt she has got herself examined ais"§{.W. It is inllli.er...e\jidence.Vl:* that she sustained multiple fracture.V:of hnees. She was admitted to Chinma3i'a..iHospit:;ii.;at'V--I{ratnalapur and on the next day, 2'7. Hospital at Mangalore, €:_reate:_d:::aslimpatient for 30 days. During that fracture was set with the helpijof _ Shehas further deposed that she has been'takingStre'at:rhen't,".but she has not recouped from the afteneffects the accident. She has deposed that she was the tirnemof accident and has spent a sum of R-.s.3.;50l;OO0.{¥ towards medicine, nourishment and conveyance andAe~arni_ng /-- pm. She has further deposed that she pdepositing Rs.200/- in pigmy account every day. In the S jC:o'ss--eXarnination of P.W.i by the counsel for the insurance ,:(;ofr1pany, she has de1[1i:c_lal1 the suggestions. In support of the 14 MFA No.7515/2004 C/W. MFA N0."/166/2004 C/W.7167/2004 case of the claimant, Dr.B.N.Rosharx Kumar has been examined as P.W.3. it is in his evidence that he examined P.W.1/Renuka on 27.12.2000 and perused the Wniedical reports. On examination, he noticed limping on;""rig.ht..__:'sinie,'~. difficulty to stand or climb, to squat and pa.inV_u_:in_ ._r1ghi ., thigh. Further. he has noticed shortened by 3 cms. in 1ength;gwasting*~ ofquadrhseps side. restriction of flexion of hiplvlvlbejfcnd llU'O.°'p"aiid liznee after 1 10°. X--rays showed fracture u:iiite£lv"é:tnd,_e;:uberant callus and implant reaction. He f_'thatv.'he_';vaovised P.W.3 to avoid strenuous 'activities. =ito"xusepvvlileeljaise on the right footwearlrancl iinplva_rit.s.' at the earliest and assessed permanent'disablementlxvithbpglyreiverence to the right lower limb at 40%§a'1'1d "reference to whole body 20%. P.W.3 has given he has not treated P.W.3 before examining her. the suggestion that his assessment with regardto permanent disablement is on the higher side. .. 13. per Ex.P~1, P.W.1/Renuka has sustained the 1' lfolilowring injufieh 15 MFA No.7515/2004 c/w.
MFA No.7166/2004 c/w.7167/2004 a] Laceration measuring 4 x l cms. Nose with fracture nasal bone.
b) Contusion lower lip with fracture of tooth.
c] Contusion forehead with concussion (concussionai. head injury].
d) Multiple abrasions right fo.re;a'rtn. left' chest.
e] Swelling deformity rigl1t"'ls«.t:h'i§_{l1 and_:fra_c*é:ureHvof thighfl bone (femur).
The Medical Officer has.lopli'ne'd' No.4 is simple and all other injur1;e¥slfare griexrotls l l4.vz7Tlhe has observed that P.W.3/ Dr.B.NV.Roshafi liumar A'wh'o'fhas assessed the disablement of the clalmant,».has noi"'tr'eated P.W. l. The Tribunal, considering the' .¢vmesn¢e. "o_n"-'record, fixed income of the claimant at applied multiplier 16 and awarded . 'compensation as under:
.?
16 MFA N0.75l5/2004 C/W. MFA N0.7166/2004 C/w.7167/2004 Rs.
i} Pain and suffering 40,000--O0 ii} Loss of amenities of life 40.000--0O iii} Nourishment and conveyance 0 , H 0- g V expenses
iv) Loss of future earning M Rs.4,500 x 15% x 12 x 16 if V) Future medical
15. We have perused 7vent,ii'e.';r.records including evidencevi'and--.inedica'i.;bill's.fpproduceé-- by the claimant. The bills produceciqgy the receipt issued for a sum of Rs.35,000/ 'ioixrardfs-_adyanc~e. The professional charges said to paid to the do(:t.o_r__s,in a sum of Rs.3,000/~, Rs.l,O00/--, :an"d.__Rs.8,000/-- cannot be accepted since those doctors havefnot been examined. Hence, professional charges Isaid be paid in all amounting to Rs.30,000/-- cannot be
2..facceptedlff Further, there is an Ambulance bill for Rs.'?,0O0/--
. de:ted"'1e.02.2001 and a receipt dated 24.01.2001 issued in the "letter head of Indira Hospital, Mangalore, for a sum of Li 17 MFA No.75i5/2004 c/W. MFA No.7166/2004 c/w.7167/2004 Rs.l2,000/-- towards nail, screws and instrumentation charges also cannot be accepted in the absence of proof thereof. The admissible medical bills produced by the claimants comes to Rs/i8,820/--. The Tribunal has not awarded any--g"a--1"I_'ioVii'.:it towards Inedicai expenses. The Tribunal awarded ' Rs.10,000/« towards future medicai if lower side. In the absence of cogent 1and..A_Asa'tisfacto:j'3:r on record to estabiish that -__ti:.e claimant' Rs.7,000/-- 13,111., the claims Tribiu.naiv.has_fixed' 'earnings of the deceased at Rs.4~,500/-- pernria.nent disablement is fixed at 15% of Varma's case reportedflin 20lO9'v.'AQJ3'«.129:8;-Iiriiiitiplier is 17 for the age group 26 »~ 30; lwhereas._«th.e-- jf1*i_bunal has applied multiplier 16. Therefore,_ thexc»1airnant'is "entitled for compensation towards 'future ic3s's ea§rli'i:"g' applying multiplier 17. Since the V"e~.ti1feated as inpatient from 26.12.2000 to 10.0l,l20()~1~rltheft. claimant is entitled for loss of earning during the period: of treatment and rest at least for a period of five But the Tribunal has not awarded compensation V. -hlltowards loss of earning during the period of treatment and rest. L 18 MFA N0.7515/2004 C/W. MFA NO.7l66/2004 C/W716?/2004 Further, the Tribunal has not awarded attendant charges and incidental expenses.
16. Therefore, the claimant is entitled fer K V' as under:
1]
iv) V) Vi) V11), Less:
"'RS:4'f5O'G:1ix'-15(?0V'X' 12 M'edicai.texpensesV"" _ .
Loss of earning durii:1g__the ' ' Period of treatment andzijest .. (RS.4,500/- X 5 n*10nth's}__ _ 22,500-00; Pain and suf'fe_ri'ng I V..,i"'4Q,000-00 (as awarded by the 'I'ribu»nai) " -- Loss Q.fVamenr;ities ' is _ 7 'r;»1d,000--00 (as awarded by the "Trib'-anai] 1 ,37, 700-00 48320-00 « ';Attendant"'cVhar3ge.s4 [Rs.1VC0Vx--.3O)_ 3,000-00 I€iuAtureV"n1e«dieaI expenses 1 5,000--0O ".C0n"Ve_yance and incidental ' __V,_C'§3a:ges 10,000--OO Total 3,17,020--0O 3_Cempensati0n awarded ' = By the Tribunal 2,27,600--OO 4 .4 19 MFA i\¥o.7515/2004 C/W. MFA No.'7166/2004 c/W716'?/2004
17. Thus, the claimant in MFA No.7166/2004 is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.89,420/--. The TIfib'L1Iiet1.>_fIi-as awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a., and the egg" g E_ «seat»; mm:,«a~ é~'~*j'""""'*f*"~""Tf"'N9**""'*'--@f'§ call for enhancement" Accordingly, tne..Point rxrm .ansWered 0' " . partly in the affirmative.
18. In so far as the case"-of tlie*-- ;§iai:fi_aii'e "iii 'MFA V' l\¥o.7167/2004 is concenried, /tlie' awarded compensation as under:
I Rs.
1) Pain ' ' 30,000-00 11) 0 32.083~00 1:1) for " 0 15,000«~oo
iv) Nour4£shment_ Cionveyance 5,000--0O 0 00 0 Total _mé;%:2--,_Cl-8-I;:0--0"
cllvainaant was 7 years old at the time of accident. P.W.f3--~,[_Dr.vB;J\E;Roshan Kumar has deposed that he examined clainiarit on 06.01.2004 at Bangalore and noticed right if gain 1/5 c.ms. length, ankle stiffness, Wasting of muscles and the fr has united well. The Medical 20 MFA N0.7515/2004 C/w.
MFA N0.7166/2004 C/w.7167/2004» Officer has assessed permanent disablement at 20%.___ The claimant had sustained fracture of right tibia. As thcfracttire was united well, the Tribunal has held that " . permanent disablement. The n1edica1__r.€:p_Qrts_-at"'E:a.'Pe3'iVrevealsit"
that she was admitted to indira l5i0sp_ital:' "'cu1 27.12.2000 and discharged on':-0.._'01.200'i. V'I'l'ieref0re,Wshevbisdi? entitled for compensation towards.Vattendan't«.l:charg;es at the rate of Rs. 100/ -- per day of three months as she had sustained fracture', :1» has not examined the 0f R5500/-- and Rs. 15,750/~ those two receipts cannot awarded by the Tribunal towards medical and the claimant is not entitled' for any c0rr1pens'ation towards medical expenses. The .c0ntei1tiori"0fVl'the learned Counsel for appellant/claimant that medicai,b'ill:s~ljroduced by the claimant were not taken into acccunt _the Tribunal, is not correct. The claimant is ' . entitled lforlicompensation as under: 9
§ 21 MFA No.7515/2004 C/W. MFA No.7166/2004 C/w.7167/2004 Rs.
i) Attendant Charges {Rs.100/-- X 90 days) l 2 "
ii) Loss of amenities of life 0 0' iii] Pain and suffering ' . -S « [as awarded by the Tribunal)', .0 30300/0::e ' iv} Medical expenses it h h V] Nourishment and'conve3faTrice_ it Vi) Conveyance any' 5,000--00 Less:
Tribunal'-V' h 82,083~O0 Addition,i0;l,I'"jlilorfifiensdtion 00 ' 29,000--00 Thus; "the entitled for additional compensation }':l-- with interest as awarded by the .'«I"'}~5'¢?:')Iv.1v'1'VI.§':.l_ 5»--.Acc'crdinglyllthe Point No.2 is answered partly in the affi1*inative}' 2 " 0 ~ . V V ,2 Ev'.oint:No.3: So as to answer Point No.3, we shall look 'mm the Insurance policy. The vehicle in question is a private ...car'--eornprehensive1y insured with National Insurance Company "-.:Li:riited. The insurance policy was in force from 05.09.2000 to f 22 MFA N0.75}5/2004 C/W. MFA No.7i66/2004 c/w.7'167/2004 04.09.2001. The owner of the car is none other than the husband and father of the claimants. The accident..'CCcurred on 26.12.2000. The claimants were the inmate--s:..oi':th'e--' 0.
They sustained grievous injuries. The owner has'p*ai_d. pre1"niuml" of Rs.6,941/--. Out of which, a ltolwartis basic premium, Rs.15/-- v'towards'-.. legal*jiiab.iliVty3 017:"
passenger/NFPP and a sum named person / unnamed / paid cleaners / unnamed hirer/ driver Pi1lion..Passenger, of Rs.50/-- cannot be one Keeping in Vi€W the permissibiie car and comprehensive insurance the policy should cover the risk all '[0110'l}ii1illéi£0:S';'0CCupaI1tS of the car. Merely because -the clairnants are izvife and daughter of the owner of cannot bewlsaid that they are not entitled for the recent decision of the Apex Court reported 2009 so 990 (BHAGYALAKSHMI AND 0"-'«.___OTHERS' UNITED ENDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ETC.), the Apex Court has held that the ccomiprehensive insurance policy covers the risk not only of L 23 MFA No.75l5/2004 C/W. MFA No.7l66/2004 C/W716?'/2004 '£-
third party but also the persons travelling in the car including the owner thereof.
21. The Insurance Company has not challenged:..sa'dd'ling-2 liability on it with reference to the compensation.*awaifded'=in-- favour. of the claimant/wife. The Tribunal ierrelda thatagtlie l' Insurance policy does not cover thlevrisk of _n'1ore than one person}. The decisions cited by the learneTd'«.V',oo1insel"'for:fthe} Insurance Company are of no avail. In answer Point No.3 holding that the Insurance..Co:npany:_pis."'1iablIe--"V"to indemnify the owner of the Vfarvjias the claim of the daughter also. 1 ..
22. Irirtlflle MFA No.7515/2004 is allowed with costs holding "insurer shall indemnify the owner and the»*'entire Vaward».a_;nQ:unt in MVC No.5014/2001. Office is directed to .r_ei'u11d"'the statutory deposit amount of Rs.25,000/~ to V the Appe1.1a;§t;*5x;.mpe"f.'i AAppea1__A«:in MFA No.7166/2004 is partly allowed with costs holdiiig that the appellant/claimant is entitled for additional 'co:Inpensation of Rs.89,420/-- along with costs and interest as .ai.i?arded by the Tribunal.
J L/..
24 MFA No.75}.5/2004 C/W. MFA No."/166/2004 c/W716?/2004 Appeal in MFA No."/167/2004 is partly allowed holding that the appellant/ claimant is entitled for additional compensation of Rs.29,000/~ with costs awarded by the Tribunal. The Re_sp.on_den_t HNod:}'.Ins1,i1*ane_euV' Company is directed to deposit 'tIr1e;'_"eritire._ amount with the Tribunal, days. from Out of the additional eoriipieixifisation aiivarded in favour of the claimants be kept in fixed deposit, in_a:1y 'ha period of five years, with liberty 5to_--_vdriaixr__penodioal iinteiiiest that accrues on the deposit; """ -
Accordingly, tiheiw & award dated 29.5.2004 made in ;I\'/TVC No.50); S'/'O14 of 2001 on the file of Adcll. ?,Q1.2fl1Vi'ir1s' iiii Hdudge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalote;
33333 sa/L §§$Q§