Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Smt Sarojanibai on 24 July, 2008
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
<"'| .2} respondents/ciaimants a sum of Rs.2,41,000/- as
C£§fT"Ii3éf¥S8ti0fl.
2. The cantextuai facts are:
a) Respcmdents 1 to Sféied cVi aé:A'§:"§'--¢:r:degi'..*sg}:ti£:r*:V of the Mater Vehicies Act befoféL».:f_h»e juri§d§¢;'ii¢-;Vi1ai.'"ffi?iVbur:ai seeking grant cf ¢om;;{e4"r*:satif>%i"':' on 11.3.2064, indersinah _éif'__ '§-§var1:*s§vi'i;:.j'V_~; (I%saders) were praceedine fr§fi'§:j;,L:i}?°{ap%:ar§§.§§:Sn it: Latur with agricuiturai iézfeafiifié;"""--wfi'é'rgL i?;é.V-véhicie was meving near Madansm i6S£V ccntrei and by his negiigen§e,V§1ét iagavifiézéi; .s7b*r1ffé»»s§$bject due to which the vehicie turned' turtie%'é~mj' :api*siz:'edV; A.ii the inmates sufierad injuries "cf Va-%i5us*-Léieefees; bi3'i"iinfc-rtunately Indersingh succumbed i'::r§; f';;es be ieaai heérs and dependents of the de¢e§:$'a«d,,.t¥j &:*;s':;songht to be ccrmpensateé tawards less of "-..».'_t:.'.e:::e1r':ciér;f;}$; and aiso conventicmai heads.
The daim was resisted by' the respanderzts viz, T -4. "ifis::red am? irxaarer.
@197, 4 z::) 'the insurance cempahy was the main eoht&$ite.re:.te negate the cfeirn. It tank a specific cehtent¥o::----thet' the fieceesee was treveifihe aiehq _s_r1.:th_geed§;" 'terms "
the eeiicv restricts iiebiiity ohhr 6:'_'_eersees;~ number ef eersohs injured teeter'-rhore"th:ae 6;".the_'i«es1.e?ahce~.C cemeeray' rzehhet be eectdied e;§tLhjA'»£>i_eei§ity...' disputes heaticeeee of the dri've'r__ Jeisevhitrezidehtai rjreuhee reeerfiihe actual _eerneehset§é'e.'v'* J
5) §n:eerec;;:;rcrttan the pleadings of the cieirr_:eVh:te..Ve:'hV£§.;:reeee'hevehte;Vi'VtheVtribuhei forrrnsteted a humher,_ef._ er:t§iyiz:gf their evidence tendered by the ciairrrehtsrr in connected cesa, heie that _ the egieideht 'hr?aeV1V;f'e"'sLzit:ef rsegiigent driving by the driver at' thee.reffeheEh'fi«.._vehtcie referred to eheve arse fastehee Aes.:tte_r;eb'£e""éArreije"'eh him. Cehseeuehtiy, the iesue reiatirze _ te e'etit§.eh:e:ht er the eiairnehts was answered in the 4" " ,effi.r:fhetive.
e} As regards eeerstificatien of cemeehsetteh is
-eehcerhee, the Tribuhei accepted the eiee at the cieirnehts 6 been urmecessariiy saddied with iiabiiity to disc:harqe___the amczmt cf camazensatian determineé by the Tribuna.fv,~.i'-féeiv it is necessary' tc first refer to the other specific S. In the Trihunai as aisg isvefmfcr-2-:"--.Tf_l:A.i'zTisA. auastiéned, Seamed ccunsei faf t«z§':gf"V3ppé§ia«n£ a.;3§*.nifé5i'%i"tiV::éar terms that the irusurance <:r:.rn:3ami §*.:ésf.2"Vif:'x:~.i;'ciis}iijted"£§1at the cieceased was travéiiing goods, if'! the vefaicie in ai3e3§icré¥ _- xén the pramise that the mat znaersmah was traveiiing ihé"'ei§enéino vehicie was not disputedv. "-_If7' ié ciear admissier: for which rm prczcef is T'véGl;f§I'é§f:. - :f :.i"is."-accepted that the deceased was :_.«-"'~trave.§f§i}2aE___féiz}n§ iéiith .... the weds, than the auestien is, whe{f:e::j i2,e wf3S ":;avered under the insurance aelicy', ever': if it Amt.' V' 9:-3': $€:Cfi§fi 14?' éf M.V.Act is the relevant pravisién. ' "'2~'é_'€<:'j.AtiVTe:"x'i..A9S' cf the Act of 1939 was substantiaiiy amended by Act of 1994 53 as '(:0 inciude coverage if! '~._ "=res9ect sf aerscms whe acccxmiaany cjaods or as I9 _ §. For the reasens afaresaié, I am unable ta a;:g:epf._aj_n~; ef the tzententicm urged by the teamed appeiiantfimurance company. They are re§.eatau:-$3.. 'ffingj V' merit in the aapeai and it is acégrdiinfifv "d:i$'?r;'is$é'é'\:.,j,,_ ' impugned judgment is cenf§rr.*§;§:éd,.V