IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2595 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
MASTER KEERTHI S/O H.NATESH AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER/ NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI.H.NATESH S/O.HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, HEBBANAKUPPE VILLAGE, CHIKUNDA POST HUNSUR TALUK – 571 105, MYSORE DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. JINENDRA S/O K.JARAPPA MAJOR, R/AT KIRAN NIVAS, PERAJE VILLAGE DARBE, BANTWAL TALUK – 574 211 MANGALORE DISTRICT 2. M.ABBAS, MAJOR S/O UMMER R/AT MANI VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 211 MANGALORE DISTRICT 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD, MYSORE - 01 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER 4. SMT.ASHA, MAJOR W/O JINENDRA R/AT KIRAN NIVASA, PERAJE VILLAGE DARBE, PUTTURU TALUK – 574 211 MANGALORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.S.SRIRAM, ADV. FOR R3; R1 & R2 ARE SERVED;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD:09.12.2013) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.12.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.75/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND JMFC, MACT, HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T For having suffered injures in the road traffic accident, the claim petition has been filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hunsur. Considering the case of the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.62,000/-. Against the same, this appeal is filed.
2. While passing the award, liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle. The reason for fastening the liability on the owner is in respect of the discrepancy in vehicle number mentioned in the cover note and the one mentioned in the policy. In the complaint Exhibit-P1, the vehicle number is shown as KA 21 Z 9959 – Tata Sumo, whereas the policy Exhibit R1 shows the vehicle number as KA 21 Z 9969. The dispute between the vehicle number 9959 or 9969 was the subject matter. Having considered the same and on the basis of police information report and the Fist Information Report, the liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle.
3. The ground taken by the appellant is that the vehicle number mentioned in the cover note Exhibit R1 and the Police Information Report are one and the same and hence the liability should have been fastened on the Insurerp. Considering the fact that the vehicle number shown in the Policy is different from the one shown in the Cover Note, it is to be held that the vehicle number shown in the Policy prevails over the one mentioned in the Cover Note. Hence, at any stretch of imagination, the liability cannot be fastened on the other respondent for the reason that the policy holder and other respondent are husband and wife. Under the circumstance, appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Owner to satisfy the award.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE lnn