Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Mohammed Jeelani on 12 February, 2009
Sed Saat fs tae & % Yeshwanthpur, gE De hy £ OMMO Tv APPELLAN wantnour, $n Nagar, Ye Fa My, BK | - (Sn.& Krishna Reddy, Adv. for R-1; R-2 servea) Tris MFA Js fled w/S.4730 hb f MV Act, against.the jucgmen o aware ct 4 74 05 pascee a ompencation of Rs2 2 OO, '000/- with inte erest-2 at 8% D3 yor tne dete of petition Ul is deposit mo socal MFA No.10748/2005 1. Sf. Mohammed Shafi, S/o.Sri Mohamed Hussain.B:K. © Aged about 27 years, Ria.Nos 8, KSCB Quarlers, Jai Baus vanestiwati nagar, i Stage, Nandini Layout, Aandal lore 580 O860. 0 | . Ste Mohammed Khateel 'Ahmed, (o.Sri AP med Khan, No.i4, 13° Gross, B.K. Nagar, veghw an ee . Bari gai e586 O22. . RESPONDENTS (SAR. Kr rishi 18 , Reddy, Ady. for R-1, R-2 served) This MFA is filed u/S.173(1) of MV Act, against the _juigment and avierd dt. 14- 7-05 passed in LAVC.No. 5889/2002 on the file of the XIX Addl SCJ & "MACT, Metropolitan area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), awarding compensation of Rs.12,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition 01 ts deposi. L- _ MYC. ; 'No. SSSS/e fated Aged about 26 6 yea ars Ria.No 37, KSCB Quarters, Jai Bhuvaneshwarinagar, il Stage, Nandini Layout, Bangalore-560 O96. zZ. ofl Monammed Khale el Armed, S/o SriAn med Khan, No. 14,13" Cros 3 BK. Nagar Yeshwanthpur, : Cy _ . Bangal ore-S60 022-0 RESPONDENTS (S1i.R Krishna Reds, AG y-for Reto R-2 serv ed) juegment and : _MACT, Metropole area, Bangalore (SCCH-17), awarding a é "co ompens ction oF Rs.1 ,79,000/- with interest These first ap ppeais coming for final disposal this aay, the Court delivered the icllowing | ay Ss, tne G BS Py 4 3 ra 2,00, ively V a MENT Se cA rt om ft Sud appeals arise out of the common 0 rf 8 mpugned judgment and awar a i/ _ 6 three r By ine g s ?: C r y & a tn brief, the facts are, S udgment and award date a a i & w3 @ clan 5 ie me uy . a ee a en, re) a | 6 OF Bao Oy So ¢ Y oh. re) ay 2002. ne ! 2 ey i BS Fy & no as ryt a Be rer 78) é Qo é n and E i fe spelia " ya ig th rbune B5/20 ar: ne GS i We 3 a ureg 7 i 5 ne oa aes of tp nc therefore, tne ee S ce. f # Ey d e on tne appellant *
By fied in fasten y gebee eb @ u n therefore, § yYoa [ and MVC Ne.585/200 = g iSO of 18 ernio:
u Hn i E oe Z Tt vated re et Eo cee ry i eb 5 29 00 200 O53 passenger ana therefore, a 5 ered anc a mm ;2
e ' 5 "fi layes, 9 5 lan estioning 1s ladllity. o are ae o ar ia fiSK | bunal. \ Pet em ratuito $ .
covered under the polic e é L b ea € iA he. Trip ip a oy os = © Be 8 | = @ & , 2 . & 23 8 . ce = @ & &
- ey * £ © abel t Pa é&
7.
a 7 7 E just Ww o ieved by that, the appell 0 3 hed these appes ore, = lability on 6 ri inere 'eppellant-tr airna 2 2 ot " s -- 0 he = wo c te pa Q ey oe Fa . gee é ey ae fn w ve a = a g ran 5 ; ea _ fe eS < est a an a iD an & i © - 2 oe eo os 8 .« £ & £
- , 2g & FF 8B t Lu hy if Fie o dot cL Q 5 2 3s = & 5 "N o& » & & 8 #£ wo 6 © ey es = Se <j G3 " = gy -* ra Bh : ay = a on * P - ae & 2c ag g . if aS we s oO eid sadn? 2 D = i aka pag & fy * when ms rs ee oh 2 eee = £ Re i suomi a aa fe tad ea 4 cota pS y.anae ee es nce Compar ¢ £ ra pany?
re a i é my Ee es ni-insurance Co = ad £ r ine H rn £ ry a ne steer g i e ey * Bane .
: sid ba a tan te ey oe Be Be ~ oh. po o .
a) ape Be es ay 4 Som a ae Be -- aD * e ha CF . co ie ram Be £5 oh. ed 3 OC risk & carding ri 7 oe snore a de 'ne . i . eo. & w ~ aa a saad 5 bee tie Bla ae sho
3. : ae Be op o 3 Sa A a 8 itis clear from th ey t i :
@ & in learned counsel for the appell is tf : . Ss a ae Boe eel, OH e 2 eat chee ge me a > & Pon a te a Se oc a 8 0 ; e £3 coe a a eS Bee mI ey sn ae ce Ss 3 «2 OS ec = 3 a = 'a G 2 & eo a e aployees of ine in necon wih ine ge ae S te Sig?
pe Be con ie *S 4 i ni or unloading ef tre motor venicie. 4 £3:
mu oon Qf ms in ae eb & im has bee empioyees ic u mer by well S is eet ¥ a cn the employees of the insured. ¥ p e oolicy has been issued in respect of the vehk N t of Workmien's Compensa & B gab Faget A not Pp empioyees were employed in connection with the agricultural work and not in connection with 'the motor.
vehicle. Therefore, this Court nas. held, the risk is not"
covered and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the.
'ofth th 1 hirer. ois clear "s eae ce.
a ea oe oh} a Lam grein se chp 'we ne CT an ap sree ae
a) fe od To o ca ett oD @.
ee from the terms of polley; ti Ae. pre aim has bee ri collected to ' es hate Oo a eter ee Pool hn Font le oy by cover the.risk of driver. coaile/ether employees in COMPANY WS. NACH! MUTHU reported in 1998 ACJ 684 : has held the, word "cage" would cover the persons : er nioyed: my the owner of the goods or the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, #18 clear, the risk of the employees of
- / ine owner of ihe goods is aise covered. The submission of ihe learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company # that assuming that the claimants are the ampioyees of the hirer, then also, they are gratuitous pessengers end th ¥ :
se insurance Company is not liable cannot be accepied, ~~
10. {ft is clear from the evidence on record, the :
clalmanis were the employees. of the Aver and they ware loaders end unioaders, The premiurn has peer cole ote ed to cover the risk of the | driver, noi esi oiner employees in connection with the operal on, 'maintenance and unloading of the venics ie. TReref ore, the rigk is bovered Therefore, In my c sidered. view, there. sre is.no 'meri if in these appeals and hence, they are liable ia s be ai isin! seed.
14. Ascordl ai ingly | fey are dismissed.
The amount.in- deposit shall be transmitted to the , MACT for cists ursement,
-Bss.
aie