AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant is the owner of the tourist car bearing No. CRX 8537. The II respondent is the insurer. The first respondent and the other persons were travelling in the said car. It met with an accident on 22-5-1989. In all there were 9 petitions before the MACT, Bangalore Rural District arising out of this accident. The Tribunal has awarded as follows.-
Sl. No.
MVC No.
Award amount
(Rs.)
1.
851/89
2,99,000
2.
813/89
30,000
3.
812/89
30,000
4.
811/89
20,000
5.
853/89
15,000
6.
814/89
10,000
7.
852/89
5,000
8.
815/89
1,000
9.
816/89
1,000
The Tribunal has held that the Insurance Company is liable in MVC Nos. 811 to 815 of 1989. For others it is held that the owner is liable. Being aggrieved by this the appellant-owner has preferred this appeal.
Mr. S.A. Nazeer, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company is liable to make good the compensation for 5 passengers and the Tribunal ought to have chosen such of the petitioners for whom the higher compensation was awarded. On the other hand, Mr. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment and award of the MACT.
It is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company is liable to make good the compensation for 5 passengers. Normally it is the Insurance Company which has to pay the compensation to such of the petitioners who are awarded higher compensation. The Tribunal should have ordered the Insurance Company to pay accordingly in the interest of justice. In view of this, I am inclined to set aside the order of the MACT, Bangalore Rural District and pass the following order:
Respondent 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner/s in MVC Nos. 851, 813, 812, 811 and 853 of 1989. The appellant owner is liable to pay the compensation in MVC Nos. 814, 852, 815 and 816 of 1989 with such interest as awarded by the MACT.
Mr. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for respondent 2 submits that he has already deposited the compensation in MVC Nos. 811 to 815 of 1989 along with interest and costs. In view of this submission, the appellant-owner is directed to refund the compensation amount deposited by respondent 2 with interest and costs in MVC No. 814 of 1989.
The amount that is deposited by the appellant in this Court in MVC Nos. 851, 813, 812, 853 and 811 of 1989 shall be refunded to the appellant.