High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 06 KAR CK 0191

National Insurance Company Limited vs Sudhakar Ankush Biradar

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 4 June 2014 · Citation: (2014) 3 AKR 706

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anand Byrareddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 30340 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 347 words

Anand Byrareddy, J.—In so far as MFA No. 30386/2012 is concerned, there is a delay of 5 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the appeal having been served. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. These appeals are considered for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2.

The appellants are the Insurance Companies of the respective vehicles, which were involved in the accident. The appellant in MFA No. 30340/2012 had insured the lorry where the injured claimant was travelling. It transpires that the appellant in MFA No. 30386/2012 was the insurer who had insured the lorry which was parked on the road. Consequently, the lorry insured in MFA No. 30340/2012 had dashed rear end of the lorry bearing No. KA-32/8210. As a result of which the occupants of the lorry had suffered injuries and they claimed compensation.

3.

The tribunal in its decision had imposed 25% liability on the appellant in MFA No. 30340/2012 and imposed 75% liability on the appellant in MFA No. 30386/2012.

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

5.

There are authorities to hold that when vehicles are parked on the road without any warning lights and if the accident had occurred during the night hours, the fault would lie on the vehicle which was parked on the road without warning lights. Even it is contended that the vehicle involved was parked on the side of the road and not in the middle of the road, the fault would still lie with that vehicle. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability atleast equally, between the appellants herein. It is on this short ground that the appeals are contested. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties if the liability is apportioned equally. Accordingly, appeals are disposed of holding that the appellants in MFA No. 30340/2012 and MFA No. 30386/2012 shall bear the liability equally.

The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transferred to the tribunal for the benefit of the respective claimants.