Smt Sarojamma vs Ningaiah on 21 November, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Sarojamma vs Ningaiah on 21 November, 2011

Bench: N.K.Patil

4. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Office,

M.H.Road,
Chitradurga.

9 

(By Shri. R.Shashidhara, Advocate for R-l to R3
Shri. K.Dhiraj Kumar, Advocate for R4) 
**** i '

This MFA is ﬁled U/S 17311)' of Mvyiot,' "against the
Judgment and Award dated: 04V,/-O2-/V2009, passed*in~MVC No.
257/2005 on the file ofthe 1.Adg1it'io._oai"*civi1 Judge(S1'.Dn)
and 111 Additional Motor" 'Accidentiiv._ 'Claims Tribunal,
Chitradurga, awarding a Acornpensationbf'€232,000/-- with
interest @ 6% pa: from the date ofpetitioniztill deposit.

This MFAvcoir1i.'b_g'o

_ _ _ ___for_ Hearing,» this day, the Court
delivered the fol}:ovgfing'i" ~ _  a   '

Bo£UDGMENT

Tappeal  of the offending Vehicle,

 is djI§ecte.d against  judgment and award dated 4th

 passed in MVC No. 257/2005, by the I

Aooitiohoi"_*icvci'vfi1'l;Jutigo(sr.Dn) and 111 Additional Motor

B Accidenfv, Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, (for short,

 '2..f"Tri'b'uAnal') for setting aside the liability fastened on her

'  afrggddtlo fasten the sarne on the Insurer.

Q4

/_/ﬂ//.

.; podndents. " "



2. The facts in brief are that, the claimant'  -

the husband and claimant Nos.2 and 3 and"th§g.ghi:1dre1:,,:if  

of the deceased Rangamma. ..:fi1ed_1 

petition under Section 166V'iof_..theV'l'./[otor 'Jeh.i;cV],esH 

contending that, at about  "_:1v'j1--O:ﬁ6--2002,
when the deceased  other coolies
had been to Somanaha,]1i"_1',er'h,pi:e  the dinner
arranged by  of the
deceased v'toRt»hedBrick Factory in a
Tipper,v'Lorry  at that time, the
driver the  drove the sanie in a rash

and negligent .TVT1;-.3IA1:*._1be'r.-near Kantapura Domappa's

 1and~...ofvGangsa1nudra village on Bogadi

 Road. As a result of the seune, the vehicle

  right side. Due to the impact, the

-V deceased "sustained grievous injuries and she was

if"fddsiinmediately shifted to Government Hospital at

  if-lgedgaiarnangala and thereafter shifted to A.C. Giri

"Hospital. She was kept in ICU for one Day, but,

unfortunately, she succumbed to the injuries.

ﬂax»



5. Shri. R. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant owner, at the  2

that, the Insurance Company has ﬁled 

No.2499/2009, wherein, this Coui'f{'by"._it:s

dated 28th October 2009 has heldfthat thegi.njur'ed

travelling as employees  six"  the
insurer is liable to .under'"the policy.
Further, he submits   judgment,
this Court  ﬁled by the
Insurer in. and connected cases
on   submits that, following
the aforesaid V impugned judgment and

awaifdl' passed. Tribunal is liable to be modiﬁed,

 the liability fastened on the owner and to

  on the insurer of the offending Vehicle.

  perusal of the aforesaid judgments of this

 .. Courtllearned counsel appearing for fourth respondent,

if not dispute the said position and he fairly submits that the submission of the appellant owner may be placed on record and the atter may be disposed of. km'/'__,,,

7. After hearing learned for and after careful perusal judgment'-gafid""award I' I passed by the Tribunal coup.led thedaforesiaid two decisions of this View that the Tribunal has erred invAnot_ jfastenirlg..thei,_"liability on the Insurer. 'ti';-ejappeals filed by Insurer, and connected matters; on" following the decision of this Court I l_\/IQF disposed of on 28"' October where.in'A.it is held that the injured were travelling as erfiployees and upto six in number, the *inVs'u.rer_is*liab_le to pay the compensation under the I am of the View that the liability 'V fastened' oil the owner is liable to be set aside and the _Ilia,bility'*is to be fastened on the insurer. In the light of the facts and circumstances of ' case, as stated above, the appeal ﬁled by appellant I allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 4"' February 2009, passed in MVC No. 257/2005, by the I Additional Civil J dge(Sr.Dn) and III Additional / 7 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurg.a,:*-is', ' modified, only in so far as .fastening vll'liability_l_j_is', V r concerned.

The liability fastenedVlo:n*~~the d.appell,an,t is 'V V hereby set aside and__the is-_..'fastened-'l§on the Respondent No.4 -- Insurer;

The fourth "is directed to satisfy the? llfrilgunal, within three weeks, it of a copy of this judgment it l VT_he remai.ni"11gA"v_plo'rtion of the order passed by l V' Tribunal ,re'mains «undisturbed.

in deposit by the appellant owner is l'f"BMV* dii.-ec'ted .toV'Vlbe..t:refunded, immediately. Office to draw award, accordingly. Sd/-

JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court