Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shanta @ Lagammavva on 25 August, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25m DAY OF AUGUST,» ad "'
BEFORE V »
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. Juswxes A58... §3o2lxNN.q~.l H
M.F.A. No.93.26L/2ool4.g1v'm
BETWEEN: 'H
The Divisional Manager V _ M _
The National Insurance CojLtd'.,
1732, lst floor, Ramdev GalhL_._'
Belgaum, Represezitlevd 'oyjlits é
The Ass. Admini?_str?§T>i'Ve o1§fici<:r"' "
National Insu_:a:j'ce k'--2e;7_I.t'd..:_...__ V' ' ~
Bangalore Regjor:al_.vOffi'Ce _
Subharam. Co_niple;<i*::;:_ ~ V
No.144, :v1.G.Roao,d_, '' _ .
Bangalore--1.*. ' . " H ' Appellant
(By Sri.N .R.Ku_ppel1is, 'lS'-:S'~;'K§o_iViwad, B.C.Seethararn Rao
Associates and "IVl_.V; Pcjonachva Adv.)
A. .....
Lagammavva
'' ._ "W_'/«o:"E*lan_ar{1a'nt Basagouclanavar
'Aged 49 'years
Gee: Zrlouse hold work.
H H K i' 4." ' A. Smt. Bagavva
_ W'/_.o. Basappa Basagoudanavar
Aged about 86 years
§ Oec: House hold work.
F'
L»)
9-:
I4
Kumari Mangala
D / o. Hanamant Basagoudanavar
Aged about 34 years
Occ: Student.
Kumari Nirrnala
D/o. Hanamant Basagoudanavar
Aged about 32 years
Occ: Student.
Kttmar Suresh
S /o. Hanamant Basagoudava
Aged about 30 years
Occ: Student.
Kurnar Shrikrishnav . _ V
S / o. Hanamant Basagoudavarf. }
Aged about 26 years A :
Occ: Student." V 0'
KumariJayas'}1ir _ V g_ ~ t
D / o, .Hanamant;;B.asago;.idava.r.,..
Aged aboAut{23 years.'
Occi. St'=.1de.nt.* -, "
All are Vre_sidi_r1g' Itta'rL;igeri
Raibag Tahtk, Belgaurn' District.
Ramesh Chanaldasappa Gondi,
, *.FaLh_er.'s name not known
Ma_;ior,,_OcC:,_Bt1siness
"I2/at"Httn_sttye'1 PG.
.0 'Gokak .Ta1'_u;i<
B'e1gafumv District.
. Respondents
This VNIAAFA filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act against the
ment and award dated 20.9.2004 passed in MVC
No';_634*/93 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 85 AMACT,
E'
.___"Gokak, Awarding compensation of Rs.1,98,600/-- with interest
.._4'att--S°/o 13.51. from the date of petition till 24.8.2001 and at the
i..«J
rate of 6% from 23.7.2003 till its realisation and directing the
appellant herein to deposit the same. '
This appeal coming on for hearing this dagg-thve__l__ice.i_;rt.
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT:
The appellant Insurance Company "calledii~.jn"~r question the judgment and award°--dated SMVC No.63-4/1993. The Tribunaxl afteriliaiiiarding thieicornlpensation of Rs.I,98,600/-- with inlterest held that the appellanblnsurancegj of the vehicle is liable to reir11'biir_see.th_e co.na_pe~nsé3ti"c.n. '
2. Counsel for the appellant. The respondents pthougl3.VVseifVed' are' «ulnrepre sented. 3;; ii 'In fact;-.on_____hearing the learned Counsel for the ll'-appellant perusing the appeal papers including the records receivledp«frorrltheTribunal, the fact relating to the accident and V V the death 'tlheieafter is not in dispute. The only question for 4ii"lv.lic*oghsidreration is as to Whether the appellant--Insurance l_lCorr:_pa1i'j/ could have been made liable to reimburse the dcornpensation in the facts and circumstances arising in the :§_§;*-e'§--«MW instant case. The pleadings of the claimant in the claim petition would indicate that there is no dispute that the deceased was travelling in a goods tempo bearing No.KA~23-2955. vffihielyfact which is also evident is that the deceased is not tleic-.ien*i_ployee. of the insured but was employee working in his place of work the deceased had u{z;t{};éiiec: ..in._thie which met with an accident.
4. The appellant~Insur_aVncVe contended before the Tribunal that*--.._they'i._are'notflriable for payment of compensation since thereA.is..y_io.1a't--ion oi"t.h'¢'*5er':ns of the police even though the qiiiestioniwas"covered by the policy. In so fari_as--.the thlatrthe Vehicle in question is a goods Vehicle and"rt_hat_ was not the employee of the insured and also"th.at the deceased was not accompanying any goods in the Vdehvicle is evident from the very discussion made the evidence tendered. Therefore, the fact V is clear that the deceased was unauthorised passenger in the it ' '-Vyehicle.
5. The Tribunal, in fact, after having accepted these aspects of the matter has thereafter proceeded to hold the insurance company liable only by noticing the fact that the insurance company had. not proved that the deceasvedylrazgs a fare paying passenger in the vehicle. The Tribun_a'l"i'n-«lfastilizas _ made specific reference that the 131 respondent.in.y.si;redi.:had I'1l3lL" .. been examined to state as to whelthertighje llpersonlwhio was travelling was a fare paying pass_enger}'g_T'hus, th'leATVribun;al.cn"'xg coming to the said conclusion noticed' that 'thellnsurance Company has collected sum Rs;'5.Q/¥'aS premium towards non-fare paying passengers and has held since extra collected in respect of non--fare paying passenger; Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. _ ., In this regard, it is to be stated that the said term thellllthell_:present case would not be applicable for the reason, not at all the case of the claimants that the 'd.eceaseCiyVWias accompanying the goods in the vehicle. In that "circumstance, when it is established that the vehicle itself was lflgoofids Vehicle the question of any passengers travelling in the E' 11"";
Q?
~%':'' 6 Vehicle would not arise except if they were the permitted passengers to accompany the goods and neither farerpaying passenger nor a gratutious unauthorised passenge1".w'oijl.dl'vbe entitled to be covered under the said clause. Tltiereiflorelg Tribunal was not justified in fa.steni1':g.pthe llvl8tll'Dillvli'ij:,»7VlOI1:}tl3..€' Insurance Company.
7. Hence, in so far asrthe dirCCtiorA1p".f;ss';1ed"' to the appellant herein who is: .reSpo.nde.n_:t-- 'Noll :5' the said Claim petition to deposit the Lasipde and it is held that the 13' respoIide.nt jeornpensation to the claimants. to recover the compensation The amount said to have beenlde_posited_ Principal Bench be refunded to _ V the appellant.
terms of the above, the appeal is allowed impart. 35%;/W FELZEEQE