IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6811 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., E/18, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTAN-302 022 REPTD. BY ITS MANAGER REPRESENTED BY ITS M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., S-5, MONARCH CHAMBER 3RD FLOOR, INFANTORY ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001 REPTD. BY ITS LEGAL OFFICER (BY SHRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 2. RAKSHITHA D/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS … APPELLANT 3. MINIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 4. RATHNAMMA W/O MINIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KODIRAMASANDRA VILLAGE KOLAR TQ-563 114 5. S. RAMESH S/O SIDDAPA NO.24, RAMASANDRA VILLAGE AND POST KOLAR TALUK-563 114 RESPONDENT NO.2 SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN-R1 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. VISHESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 VIDE RODER DATED 01.09.2016 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5- HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:21.06.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.34/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.5,02,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT Insurer has presented this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 21.06.2011 in MVC No.34/2010 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar.
2. Learned advocate for the Insurer urged two grounds.
Firstly, that the trailer was not insured. Therefore, Insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. Secondly, that there was negligence on the part of the passenger.
3. Learned advocate for the respondents argued in support of the impugned award.
4. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
5. So far as the first contention is concerned, learned Tribunal has recorded that the accident has occurred when the tractor-trailer dashed against the victim. Therefore, whether the said trailer was insured or otherwise, would not make any difference. Admitted position is that injuries have occurred when the tractor attached with the trailer has dashed against the victim.
6. So far as second contention is concerned, admittedly, no evidence has been let in by the Insurer to suggest that there was negligence on the part of the victim. Therefore, both contentions urged by the appellant are untenable.
7. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
8. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal. Insurer shall satisfy the award by depositing the remaining sum within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE AV