The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs M S Nataraju on 19 August, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs M S Nataraju on 19 August, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGr§1,0RE

DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY or AUGUST 2:':-k:ki;3jj%%Lk 

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE    & L

MISCELLANEOUS 1711231" Apmagzk,  20<)4% (MV>%kk L  

BETWEEN:

The Oritsntal Insurancav  ._
Company Limited " '
Having its registered A
Office at Asaf  

New Delhi and L *    
Bangalore: Ragitjnai  
Leo Shupiiing Complex S 
Rasirﬁensy R0a'd_C'rOss V'

    ..... 
 " Reptaséntcé  its
  

Tii!13V1(i3!,Di9'§.SR3f!al

Ofﬁtre  th'e:§ appellant

 is; Hove} vgeprcscntcd by its

«k   3 Igegignaz Oﬁice
  M. Sowri Raju, Advocate)

 AND:

1. Sri. M. S. Nataraju, 44 years
Hizzdu, Male, Adukt

5»

.. APPELLANT



2. Sri. M. S. Ravccshﬁ 42 years
Hindu, Male, Adult

3. Sri. M. S. Kumaraiah, 39 years 1
Hindu, Male, Adult

Respundents Nos. I it; 3 an: 

Sons €;fLate Shivalingappa  

are Residents ufMadi1p,;:ra  " ~ '

Village, Chalur Hobli;       
Gubbi Taluk, Tum1:urDis;i,1jicf    " 

4. Sri..FaIt:cl    
SS0 Kasig:z:'E¢i11ai:,.-I¥{[£tsIin1n"    '
c/o Bash:3$=r*iI-{$31!} L    
Becdi'Age1it:y  ' 3  _
Salhyamangaia.  ' '  _ 'A '  ._ ' -

Sira Crate,    RESPONDENTS

(By Shri- S;4"'T.V_VVMai:--c2§h, Alﬁvwaie For Rcspcandents N93. 1 --~ 3,

#=!E*$'$

 _ Resptigndent No.' 5'-»--& NQﬁ.*26 held sufficient)

  VV T§{is...vMiSz:§.9iIanct>us First Appeal is filed under Section

.1'?3("1 ) of d1j::_: Motor Vehicles Act against the judgement and
award dgiitsd-=1.6.2OG3 passed in MVC- N0. I(328i'1995 on the ﬂit:

   ._'of the ~ Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additionai
 _ Motor Accident; Claims Tribunal, Tumkurf, awarding a camp of

A "« Rs._l;33,00{};'~ with inierrsst at 9% pa. frem. the date ufpctiiion and y

   directing the appeliant herein to deposit the same within 3 period
"   W0__f§30 days.

This Appeal coming em for hearing this day, the Court

A dalivemd the fo1lowing:~

é



JUDGMENT

Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the H

2. The appeal is by the insurer ii7."réspe.*a:l Lilia; «v§;hic_ir: 1'. in a i"fi0[UI' accident. As ti rcsuli, iii: the >i3'¢4:iidci1t,'=-4 swéizal passengers who were being ca,r1'ii<:gVl"lin (ha "vei3iule; which was a goorls carrying '~it3l'!i£3li§3i"Wt31"t.':ii injured sorne died, including the dccsascd, wlip is nuwiri;pwii§inl,Qd"ii:i_vi «ﬁigai reprcsttnialivcs as rt¢s}{j:$ri£ien!§;.hc:ri%fiii. claiiﬁ for compensating} bcibrc the Molar frihunai (hcreinallcr relimcd in as 'the Triba;--:2..-al' Fri? Tribunal having awarded variuus ii " 2ri2"i€}e_1nf;:i'i:1£§ludin a sum of Rs. 1,33 0005- the insurer is in 21 al. ,' V ' 2 2 contcntiein is that (lit: vary admission til.' the clairnmifsiurcspondenls, the dcceascd was travelling as a passenger with his goods in the vehicle, was a slatemcni which could have been accepted as there were mun: than 30 persems travelling in the said vehicle and there was no scope for carrying goods along with the said 30 persons. In any event, the slain} was g 4 aiiewed en the ambigueus plea in the euurse of proeeedihﬁgs that the deceased was at pedestrian who was offending vehicle. This was aeeeptedhy the tithe claim petition disclosed that the "~ii4;i:setii§:gas a passenger. It is this pzimar}i._Vigrpundi"- i"*.i.1__'1'ga:4.i. Counsel would take this,.C0urt the reeeml. teidemonstmte the glaring inﬁrmity iivg§rt:1i3s;3.iii"i::' -that the appeal he allowed.

4. for the respondent would make an effort toi ":«:esL>dn"'£he tithe ﬁnding is dearly contrary to iherefure, the claimants respondents were ' .entittlezI'f;ifesimpensation. The appeal is therefore allowed on tiieiifaee o{i_i't,.si'However, since in the course of the proceedings, the has deposited a sum of Rs.60,87I;'- on 31.12.1998 the award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehieies Act, ___1i988 and the respondents herein having withdrawn the said amount notwithstanding, that they are not in a position to sustain 8 the ciaim on merits, the amount ufoompcnsalion havingbgicn paid under a social beneﬁcial lcgisiaiion and m)lwith§§[3r1--di;:g_;: r.-Llixavl they may nut be called in suslajn the gage on appﬁifairi. shail not recover the same from the r;*;sp<.-'>ndcn[s_ :1s V'l}i€-yxivéw bcfurcs the Tribunal for t;on3"§.1isati<>n '(an ihc :t:3t'}3:I":A.'"Vi""i.§Iw' £1 bread winner of the Family, iizwould _inlcrcﬂ3iv:3fj.uEsticc if they are permilied is retain this Vagncxisniiiﬁf The Cuunse! fur iht: appcIIa_n;.§&«q:1ld there will be no attempt to 1'*€c:pv<:1" ﬁne claimants rcspun.denis pursuanlto lI1iz~;jLiilg.::1c::VnL "

~ &1[!_'1(:'§*.!.1I1:{:ii'i§If3p(L\§;iibii..It:'fuﬂd6£i lo the appellant. Sd/---

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court