The Divisional Manager vs Ningamma on 12 March, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Ningamma on 12 March, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

IN THE HIGH COURT {DP K%NATAKA CIRCUIE"'.._BENCH
AT GUI,-BARGA  

DATED THIS THE mm DAY OF' M;&_§.{iH'~V.2§§§€;% 

PRESENT

mm HON'BI.E MR.J1ISTiC:E +.';aC;..sABi:AH:'r'*
, AND. x - '   
THE E-IGNEBLE E\«{R.';TL§'SfFICE:v- A.S.__P2'§Ci'r§fi'L%PEIRE  A

MFA No._";§_:;3,4::: x20:}f?«  
BETWEEN: V  é  ' "

THE) :)1\I:s:<>1é§A%1,V:«IzaJNg§GE;;f§,,i %'   

':'§1'§: ?{*4"1Es3'i.3V. INE{3{'k% A£-§SUP2A'N'(3E (:<).LTD,
B1§:_ANGH VC}f§"FaICE %   _  
SAN.G,ei_M}:3SHWARA'CQ~MPLE}S

N V Ram, GULBAR-QA

;R13P1'1:>".~ }3_Y 'I358 REGIONAL MANAGER

.. :3? :~z<3.2~13~tJ:~m*y BmmIN<;; A.NZ'~3EX
 & -,,_Z9§I'3:3SIC'.N ROAD'
- » 'Vgzabiazzkmgﬁ £560 02?.

'  mER1§:$_1*~«1' B PA"£'iL 1

. .A?PELLA NT

 n T 

3 * -- :9: NINGAMMA,

AGED 46 YEARS

W] O NINGAPPA BI*IEEMﬁaNALLI
QCC: HOUSE HQLD

R/O YER(}B.£JE§ YADIR! 'l'ALUK



I"-J

GULBARGA DISTRIC?   
NQW RESIETJENC} A'? GANGA NAG;&,}2.:"~.V  .
QLILBARGA      .. 

<2 MALLAPPA  
AGEIEEB YEARSF   '   
3,10 DODDA BI~£E::¥;3s;I'2u§NA iii:-{i:)V'§::}~.A.:§_:£1.¥   " 
R/0 YERGOLE, YASIRI TALUK  
C¥ULBA}£GA:*{}§S'i'i§3E{3"i' " _  
zxmw RESID§,F€G_ AT GANGA NAGAR

GULBARGA  

    _    ':; '.'RES?ON{)ENT
{BY SR1. M £g:1-;;Tm%g, mv. %:€=?_c}1:a am;
SR1 3 c:;:=%:1m}31::;§Ls1~s1;f:::<;a;1g:;4,1a.}2,V_Am: FOR 122 1

 """ "'1'hi:§'. MVF%$iV'ﬁi€d:"u/ @7311] of the MV Act. agaiﬁst
t}1(:_ jL2dg:nt:::1';__au:1d._awarﬁ dated 27.2.2006 passed in
MVC N0. 382*,? '2O(}--6TA"011' the file 0f Iii ACid1.CiVil Judge

[S11 }f)i:,j * vMé::gnbt:r,. "';-MACT, Guibarga, awardin.g a.

co1fnpe1i$atim:1.'--of'i"£s."3,{)3,0()O/~ with interest at 8% p.a.,

,.1?§ou1~ the c:{a::r.: pf psetiiion iii} degmsit.

  __ Appeal Coming on far hsaring this day,

   J delivemd the fullowingr

JUDGMENT

" ;'E'lf1is appeal is fxieci by the iiitsurance Company» " "'fQ'é$p011dent 110.3 in MVC No. 382/2006 on the ﬁie of III Addmlivil Judge ['Sr.{)n.} & MAST, Gnibarga, being aggimred by the judglnent and award daized 2?.2.2G{}7 'a_ R \;--~«-

disputing the Iiability of depossiting the by '$136 MAST.

Responcient 911;). 1 No. 332/2005 cm the mg ;uage& MAST, Gu1barga,_ cdiiipéfﬁaﬁoiz of 1~2s.9,75,ooo_/-- her husband N§_§';gappa" .21 méguir '"'a(.':ci_d€:n..?, that occurred on :31; 'T35 "'i~sa"'-avéfitidyvz in the petition that the peiiﬁiénef of deceased Ningappa and on this. was tmvelhng in a jeep bearing ;:§%G.,'§<'.A=~33~E§§V~'2'z3®"on Yadgfi-«Yergele road at aboux 2,30 ' driver 0f the said jeep was driving the sanle in A ._ a negligent Hiarziier and lost contra} and the jétsﬁ' Earned turtle, on account: of which Ningappa "_T§¥}t1St8iI16d grievous inguries. He was shifted to the C':{)'8€I'1'i¥I}6I"i{ (3~en<:ral hospita}, Yadgixti. Later he was shifted to Gaveinmexsiﬁi Gemirai Hczsspital, Guibarga, for \:: 33 ,."..k_ higher tzveatxxzexm 011 203.2006 at he succumbeé to the injuries. iiwi-S. éaveérreﬁi 'i-.},;a.t" N_Lr3.ga,pf3a was an agimlliurist and w¢¢:isV 3 business and he was R§.'5{__).UQV 'I'§ie {)6ﬁ*£i{)I1€I'/C1a.iHi%§ W&1S . ¥)'1it:§'2<:: .i£1COIﬂ€ of the dtszceased and thtgréfdzfé has filed the petition geéiiirxg the driver, owner and V L3". 110.1 remained exparte before the R'23$}3'wg'3hC§6Ht 1103.2 and 3 ﬁled objections ._':L_'§::?¢e:":3%i;'1;g thé'agv3..,. «ixscsme and wcupatiori of the deceased A - 'j Q'a1%s»egLdm:ed me rash and negligent driving by the '__"'€iriv§:I* QfAFlfhe: jeep. It was corziendad by the i;f1$L1I'£iI'lC€ cmﬁipaxaywfﬁesgnndent 119.3 that the dI'i'§I6I' was not ' . 3:-zrrlciixglg valid and eff<+:<::tive drivir1g iicense as on the data at' the acczident arid the jeep was covered with Act policy 011 $116 date of accident.

3.)'!

4. On behalf 0:" the claimant, 1:135 czxaznizaed as PW--1 and got. 1 behaif of respexident 11053, 'A the I nstuance conzparxy 3111 ééézﬁined ' Va}; RW-I and Ext.R~.~'!._.copy"{>i; was-'got marked. 'i'?1€: tribzmai by me? heid that the accidarit: whegﬁgent driving by the Cﬁiingappa died due to the ingzaaes 'tl'1{é._"'é;€:&§:ident and the claimant is er1£a~:&1¢é t0 ef £2s.,3,03,009/.. with ip%:£res f':3§8%..'~p.Aa., ffom the date of petition till deposit. :tri1:;u1'1a£V1 "'1;*:é=: vge1tived the contention of the third the .:%ct pelicy produced by respendent A.;V10. 1. not cave? the iiabiliiy of {ha pas3<=:z1ger in 3 pI'i:zz§it.e car aﬁé .f<:;110wing the decision in ELF: 2806 V» * iii-ARNATAKA 889 heid that the said poiicy Cover the risk caf a passéngcar in a private car am} accordingly €iif<':2{tt€3("l me third resp011cient~Zz1su,rar1ce: conzpaizy {G \g;

pay {F26 C('}£I(1pf3I1S€iﬁ0{} awarded to the Ta'.-_$i3j1g aggieveﬁ by the said dirmtgiim 't.<) compensation awarded 1:9 {ﬁg <i:}_ai1}1.ai1t,"~t}1a uiiis«1fi1+,g11ce "

Company has pI'€f6I'I'€(I . _

5. We h8.§}§ (:o113:1$e1 for the agpellanig, . iéiiﬁpeﬂant Slibtllifffifi that VVti;'1;VVc<)1"3.te11ts of the policy E)§:t'.R?~ s}£i¢'W""fi1at Ext:.R--1 is an Act palicy a1': t1.« {Eyes liabﬂity of a passenger in a p;jivat<§"car an-d L-1ic:5' ﬁecision relied upon by the txibunal V-fiags-L Gveri-:1'*'u}eé in View of the subsequent decision. {sf Supreme Ceurt in the case of Unitecl 'A ..,«4:¥I";d§".*3':I§::;V.s';1ra11t:€ C0.Ltd., vs. Tilak Siziigh raportsd in AIR 20:;s_%':;. SUPREME 0023121' 25%, where.i11itiS new that an ' * policy cioess not cover gtmzuity pameziger carrieé in

3. private vemcle.

r: .«M_./ J \

5. Having regard to the cot1teI:ti{)I:;':f;;V"1:};}i:1t that arise for co;:1siderat.ic3I1 in this :.A_i:sg.4_WI1'r3Tt_hé;f._ the ﬁnding of the £:.ribu:1ai compa11y is Iiable to sa};j_si'y thﬁg i§f1 f7:e:&f:)1'1r of the claimant is jtxstiﬁerfozf cziiies. f<f::{9 i11 :e§'fe1'ence in this appeal.

7'. 4'§$g?%§'3_n§3we§ that the fi1::di3:1g Gf .*.;'m"::v is 'E:§fr::>net)'{1's' is liable to be set aside me' " _:=:3:1ti£:1ed to be absolved of the léabiiify-«§ii'*pa3:';:1é:ji't' cempensation, for the following:

REASGNS Tim Acimilaiszrative <j)ﬁ'ic:6r of the th3'rd 'résp(j:'1i5Ej:2:§t who has been exaznined as RW--1 in his éxafi;;i1T1¥atiez1 in strhief has stateé that tha Act. poiicy has 3:;y€c:;"1 issued Cavering the gasp KA--33«~M--26{3 0;} the data of the 2u::<:iée11t in the rzanle: of secorzd responﬁarxt and ' *1, '&,..-- ' ' , {he said poiicy did not {:(}'a*6I' the iiabiiiiy passengers traveiling in the § accident the jeep was ._ A' ':3 {0 J Tharefore the payﬁze compensation as _§)f Nothirzg has been elicited ﬁhé' to disbelieve his 6Vid€3;"}_{::(§ c011ditim-ns of the 1:?§§:t.Vp0}icy, the game 6063 1101; egvcsg in a private car. The <:ofx.:é:\'t/ ciearly ShOW that it is an Act. pgﬁcy 1':;s1'2edV £I3A"tf1é'~~34ia211e of second respondent: C{)V€I'iI"1g \:f.h§; ._j€,&:p (311't '{i'i'«Ef: £fi8.f.€ of ace::ideI1t. However, the mic?

" not (raver the iiabiiity :31' passengers in a ﬁgfiﬁaié as helé by the Honﬁoie Suprame C01}I"t in Unitésd India Insurance Cnmpany, Shimlaﬁs case, and ' V. éfherefare it is clear that tht: t:rib1ma£ was not. jusfiﬁed in fasteraing the liability an the insurance wrrxpaxly. As the ixasurance cempazzy is not iiabie to pay {W .-'i':- ' campensatioxx in terms 01" the policy Ex§fi3'.;~{f--ééazid. no additional premium has bear}. paid Iiabﬂity of p€i8S€I1g€I"S and E:{Jt:R'é'1« i_s'~«'(>11}3-i aﬁ._ gikﬂicyf'. w}1ich does not cover t;1:¢_ iia¥;::¥iEfi'Al:»'jv"-._<A;.}f p§i$s5§§i1vg£3r'S;:".é:§z3£i9I"igf:i in the jaap, we hold that "f1nd£I1g.§_)f't.E;:eVVfi?%f}ii:%ai mat the iI}S11I'aI}C€ I'€Sp{)1'1d6I"it "bafore the award passed, is €rI'0I1€Q1{_:iS'::::E'?;1;1d. is Eiiabie ".~3et..faside and we answer ¥ihf:'. f0f:f:'§(iEt€£Tﬁ1iI1e1fi"Ui1'ﬂ:aCCOI'di1'ig}}{ and pass the foliémfingi V. GRDER '_E'}';€»: is alioweci. 'E'h<-;: jtidgment anti awa::'c£ A the MAUI' in MVC N0. 332/2095 qiatxed <ii:'e(:ti31g thaii {ha C{"}ﬁ1§1i€E1Sa€§Qi1 aixﬁéded to the clainmnt sheik be paid by the * ﬁhird re$p0:1de.nt:-appe§}a111: heirein E11sm*a:1c:e Campany, is Set. aside anﬁ the crlaim ;:;&:{;i.ti0:'1 is. siiisznéssed against I'€':SpOI1(ii€¥1t I::<;.§%««i11$ura11cé: G<.:>mpaz'iy. E~-Iewaver, the cGm[)€:r1sat4i<>r1 awarded by ths: trihurzal /} 10 shaii be satisﬁaci by respondent nos. 1 ajid severaliy.

The order cf the tri¥){;n3:j. éi}._ oth€:I" 'A remain ilﬂaitﬁfﬁd.

Ths amsunt. of /-- ﬁde}30$i:ted by the appellant while §§féfé1'1'*i-mg : under Section r73{ 1; of Mom: be refunded to the Sd/-

JUDGE AAAAAA Sd/H' JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court