High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 08 KAR CK 0223

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs T.C. Mallikarjuna and Kumara Naik

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
MFA No''s. 7475 and 7476 of 2012 (MV)

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

7 paragraphs · 343 words

Huluvadi G. Ramesh

1.

Office objection is dispensed with. These two appeals are filed by the insurer against the judgment and awards dated 11-4-2012 passed by the Principal District Judge & MACT, Chickmagalur, in MVC Nos. 260 & 261/2009.

2.

The insurance company has challenged the liability fastened on it on the ground that there is no coverage to the policy and hence the liability saddled is erroneous and against the conditions of the policy.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company.

4.

The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.64,000/- and Rs.69,000/- respectively for the injuries sustained by the claimants in a motor accident. The liability is saddled on the insurance company. In paragraph 30 of the judgment, the Tribunal has held thus:-

Ex.R6 Notarised copy of the RC of the offending vehicle discloses the seating capacity as 2+1=3 totally. Even Ex.R9 the RC particulars produced by RW-1 discloses the same seating capacity. It is common sense that the first person will be the Driver. However, there is no specification as to who all should be those two other passengers. Even from the petitioners herein were not fare paid passengers and they are coolies working in the coffee estate of the 2nd respondent and admittedly, since it was a holiday for them, they had been for shopping in Chikmagalur and apparently with the permission instructions of the owner. Ex.R-8 is a package B policy as admitted by respondent No.3 himself. It specifies the seating capacity as ''0" but it apparently depicts the non-application of mind by the issuing authority of the insurance policy. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the 3rd respondent can be made liable to answer two claims and the liability of the third one will have to be saddled on the owner of the vehicle....

In view of the clear reasoning assigned by the Tribunal for fastening the liability on the appellant insurance company, there is no scope for interference. The appeals are dismissed. The amounts in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.