Karnataka High Court
The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Kum Thulasi D/O Late C M Babu on 2 July, 2010
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, Ravi Malimath
IN THE men COURT on' KARKATAKA arr smaamnn
DATES THIS '1'!-{E 2ND my' OF JULY 2019
PRSSENT
THE HoN*BL1=; pa. JUSTICE K. 1'
AND?
was KOIFBLE MR. Jvswzézag iaajvr " .
MESCELLANEOEJS FIRST A:§'PsAL 1iIo..:19TSv:z,?:2§§éS (Mv)
BETWEEN
The United iadké i;nsui*emcé~¢;',:;. "[;tt:1.,";
Regiona1~--0::ޢe~,. _
No. 25, Bufidilfag,
M GRo;g;d,'~ ' V * ' '
Banga}ore556O v
Rep. by its"D_¢.p*.1ty 'Ma11a;ge;%.;V Appefiant
_ (By, P B Raj'u,-..4§;1§.&,é.for appeiiant)
AN!)
k1:u:§.%:<na;1s;§:5%%
Age; 28 yq:-a1's3,_ * .
D/came M Babu.
' ' = Piirfishothaxzi,
_ x_I'age: ':2'? years,
' . t}{t>*-1:ite Sn" (3 M Babu.
% are residing at No.117,
Byrasandra Road, V Cross,
G M Palya, N '1' Sandra Post,
BangaI0m~560 (W8.
3. The General Manager,
HAL, Bangalore-560 O37. _
(Owner of vehicle No.MED 6027) Responéants
(By Sri B M Adiga, Adv, for C/R51 and 2)
(By Sri K S Bheemaiah, Adv., for R3)
anloll
This Miscelianeous First Appeégl is:.J'."i?1A{g-:fi:;i %'u%;e;:¢r--.sec:;a§§§1:.:1':'3(1)-----_ L
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2933, aga.i12.sf't_hc ju§1.:g.n§.ent ana~%%a4wa:d
dated 8.6.2005 passed ia NoA..45'?i2§§(}.Q"'Lkic file' bf
Membar, MACT, Mayo Hall unit,'41%:'Bg;;gg1o:»¢"(s{:§:.H{i;:zo), awaniling
compezzlsation R$.6,03,{}(§{},l_- at the of 6% yer
Thés " " for hearing this éay, Dr.
Bhakthavatsa}a,vJ§;'d€1ivcx§éi}. the following:
JUDGMENT
~. Insuxamce Company is before this Cmzrt V . quesfionfiig fiastcning of the liability on the owner of the bus .s,u1V:t1.'3..T!1;s1ii'éa:.:1ce Company to pay compensafion. of Rs.6,03,€}OO/~ to viz., the ciaughter and owner of the de<:eased~C M " Bafiu, who éied in the motor accident that occurmd on 29.1 3.1999 " Vdue to rash 311:1 negligrzznt drivizczg of the bus bearing registration N0.MED 602'? belonging to HAL.
L
3. Sri P B R3311, learned appellant] Insurance Company V appellant] Insurance V policy valid from 1.4.1999 the bus in question. Before the , Company has not adciuceci evideecefle Company was not liable of the vehicle as the victim Qfseeii£ehtV'1&7§as of HAL. He submits that the -'pay the compensation amount to the c}aimasi;:1tseax1& seeAksj;:e1'mission to adduce evidence befoze the V. on the ef liability and prays for remand of the case. Counsel for respondent No.3/owner of the bus the deceased was not an emgaloyee of EAL. Se ftuther ;that after dropping the HAL employees' ehjldxen, the t' deceased-Babe attempted to heard the bus and he slipped and fell % V. and sustained injuries, for which the owner of the bus was not liable and in the event of holgiing that the owner of the bus is L/ 22,. t then' "
liable to pay the compensation, the appellant/§;€1surance*--Company is liable to mdemnizfy the (}W'Il,&I' of the bus. _ _ K V K
5. Admittedly, the appellant] insurance 'not taken such a contention in the statement of the Tzibunal. in para-'? of statement.&cf1cbject3c_ns,_:lit thalt" "
the insurance policy Wag pxocilneegi. in was not produced before the a Net eviclencléi was adduced by the appellant] Insurance such circumstances, it is not open to contend that it is not liable to pay compensation the owner of the bus.
'§,6f _'£'l1e insiirancevcertificate produced does not indicate that ins'Lu:3,ncc__ certificate would cover risk of. HAL only. The Txibnnal has answered issue:
V . Nc.ll"";1fir1nai3've, holding that the claimants have proved ,:lt'u3e.t'_ onl'i2:9.11.2009 at about 5.00 p In on Suranjadas road at Bnngélore, the deceased was travelling as a paseezlger in the bus zegistration No.ME[} 6027. issue No.2 has been answered V in the afirtnative holding that due to rash and negligent driving of L the bus by its driver, the injumd died on 6.12.1999 at 2.35 am. The claim petition was filed by fl1e_;ei'~.the deceaseebfiabu and mother. Surfing the couISeef__ oi' claim petition before the Tribunal, the Viciiect on 1.9.2904». Therefore, the mo_ther4"oAf'bthe Nctflflttiegs deleted. in support of the case"V<>i3"t!;e Wson of the deceased] Purushotham . him'é'eI1"ve--: ivfw. 1 and got marked Exs.?.1 to R12. :1e$pei1detite_'.:Vbzafire not adduced any' rebuttal evidee.ce§.; '.jf£.htv°..]'.I"V:' ease. Under such CiI'(3'£,1}Ci}$:tx'a1,1f1('I€_t..§A,AV is _' justified in allowing the ciaim pefition beepiipensation saddling liabiiity on the appeflggnt/u ¥neui1Ievnee.v'eoiz2.pee1y. We see no illegaiity or infinnity in ' mm i;.a£:ugn.ea guaginens end amp.-1.
H 2 . the Appeal ilails ami the same is hereby
--V dismetsseéitliieeting the parties to bear their own costs. _ _ Theetatutexy amount deposited by the appellant in this case b p:.'be"£ra}§1sfi3itted to the Txibnnal and the appeiiant is ciixected to \/ deposit the baiauce award ameunt with the Txihunal months fiom today.