Manish Kumar vs Nagesh K on 21 January, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manish Kumar vs Nagesh K on 21 January, 2020

Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2597 OF 2012 (MV)

BETWEEN :

MANISH KUMAR
S/O ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER
ANIL KUMAR
S/O LATE GOVINDA PUTHRAN
AGED 47 YEARS
R/A NEHDU NAGAR
SOMESHWARA, KOTEKAR POST
MANGALORE, D.K-575 012                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SHRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.     NAGESH K
       S/O K. POOVAPPA
       MAJOR
       R/AT YASHODA NILAYA
       ALAPE, PADIL POST
       MANGALORE, D.K, PIN:575 007

2.     THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
       BR III, ESSEL CHAMBERS
       III FLOOR, KARANGALPADY
       MANGALORE, D.K
                             2



     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     BRANCH MANAGER-575 003             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    R1-SERVED)


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.12.2011 PASSED IN MVC
NO.461/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-III, D.K., MANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging judgment and award dated 29.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('MACT' for short), D.K., Mangalore, in MVC No.461/2008 awarding a global compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Shri G.Ravishankar Shastry, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant was traveling as a gratuitous passenger in a Tempo trax. The insurance policy covers any passenger who was travelling other than 3 for hire or reward. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Kalawathi and others1 to support his contention and submitted that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner. Shri Ravishankar did not urge for any enhancement.

3. The facts stated by the learned advocate for the appellant are not disputed by the learned advocate for the insurer.

4. In view of the above, this appeal merits consideration and hence the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed in part;

(ii) The judgment and award dated 29.12.2011 passed by the MACT, Mangalore, in MVC No.461/2008 is modified; 1

2011 ACJ 1831.

(iii) The insurer is held liable to satisfy the award amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(iv) The disbursement shall be in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Yn.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court