Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Shivaraj S/O Maliappa on 1 February, 2012
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. ON THE 1°' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012. BEFORE : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATK = BETWEEN | THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, NO. 13/2, I FLOOR, TEMPLE ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSORE-2 THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, OLDADDRESS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE C9. LTD., HEMA MANSION, ya 'FLOOR, © POST 96,M GANDIBAZAR, HASSAN. PRESENT ADDRES 2-B, . UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEX, P.KALINGA RAO ROAD, (MISSION ROAD), -BANGALORE-560 927 --REPTD BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER w» APPELLANT (BY SRI. MS RAJENDRAPRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL POR #.5. RAJENDRA PRASAD ASSOCIATES) 4 SHIVARAJ S/O MALIAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A MUDUDDI SIDDAPURA, GANDSI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK 2 NAGARAJU S/O GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, DRIVER OF GOODS VAN BEARING REGN.NO. Gh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C .
YL --
SH COURT C™ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH © KA-13-6885, GANDSI VILLAGE, ARASIKERE TALUK.
3 G.M.PRASAD S/O MALLIKARJUNASWAMY, MAJOR, OWNER OF GOODS VAN BEARING REGN. NO. KA-13-6885, GANDSI VILLAGE, . ARASIKERE TALUK.
| RESFONDENTS (BY M/S KUMAR ASSOCIATES FOR Ri, | SRILVDAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV-ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND. AWARD DATED: 30. 9. é009 PASSED IN MVC NO. 33/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM AND MACT, ARASIKERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 45,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. PROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT ETC. This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the _ 'Court delivered the foliowing:-
~The case of the claimant is that on 12.3.2006 at a 'about 3.15 p.m., when he was travelling along with sheep : "and goats, in a goods tamp bearing No.KA.13 -6885, gn account of the rash and negligent driving by its driver, oe the said vehicle hit the road side tree. The claimant who was the owner of the goods vehicle sustained injuries. Two other persons who were also travelling in the said vehicle Hh --
GH COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU sustained injuries. The Tribunal by the impugned judginent and award granted compensation of Rs.45 0007+ long. with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The insurer is in appeal quedtchig its liability. |
3. Heard learned counsels and sxamined the racords.
4. The learned course! for 'the insurer submits that the policy covers oie risk of onty two pereone. Accordingly, two other injured who wore. » traveling in the said vehicle having filed. elsimn patitions, were seitied by the insurer in M.V.C. No. 55/2008 and M. v. C. No. 87/2006. However, in the present casa, gince the palicy does not cover the risk of the 3 3" Person, the i insurer is not liable to satisfy the claim oo of the claimant herein.
: 's. me 's the insurance policy. In the schedule of ro ae the premium it discloses as follows: -
ee kh ll A Lh a bl oe ai, ee a ee sae a ets te A ee et ee SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM (in Rs. » A:DD = BASIC 3,883. 50/- B:T.P -- BASIC " rs. 3m. ae ~] Compulsory PA om - 100.00 | Owrier Gum Driver. ne WC to employee 3. 75.09 Grees (8) 3.455, || Gross oD are 7.339 "Wading TP| 465.00 Premium GROSS(A): ff Minimum Premium| -- - "Net Premium :
mp 1 Serviea Tax 10.24:
3a Nac Amount payable 7.884 1 Reunded) 796 "Re.200- _ ; 8.600 'TH COURT C ~ KARNATAKA HIGH CCURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH © a Tha contention of the appeliant's counsel therefore is not in consonance with the insurance policy produced by them 7 vide Ex.R1. EX.R1 very clearly states that the coverage is ae - for 3 persons. It is not a case that more than 3 persons
- were travelling in the said vehicle. Two persons have
- 'already been paid compensation, due to them in the cases referred to above. The claimant in this appeal is the 3° person entitled for his claim being settled through the appellant. No other grounds are urged. I do not find any of b RNR NE Vee eee H COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR] UF KARNALARA Marr wwwine we a error committed by the Tribunal which calls . for interference.
6. Consequently, the appeal being devoki of merits is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transtarred to the:
Tribunal. | : a _ | Meu