IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR MFA NO.4961 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.RANGA NAIK S/O BHIMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O PATREHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK - 572 143 NOW R/O SHANTHI NILAYA NEAR RMR CHOULTRY HOLALKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577 501 CHITRDURGA DISTRICT. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.J. EXTENSION, NEAR C.G. HOSPITAL, DAVANAGERE - 577 101 REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
2. SRI BUDEN SAB S/O SHEIK ALI MAJOR AGED NOT KNOWN TO APPELLANT R/O MALAGONDANAHALLI, DINDAVARA HIRIYUR TALUK - 572 143 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M U POONACHA, ADV. FOR R1; R-2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:08.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1268/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-IV, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claim petition came to be filed for having suffered injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 14th July 2014. Complaint has been made as per Exhibit P2 in which the co-worker has stated that on 14th July 2014 when they were waiting for someone, they were called by the driver of the lorry to load granite into the truck; they have accepted and loaded the material to the truck. Thereafter, the lorry ought to proceed to next shop to procure goods. In the interregnum, in view of the driver of the lorry moving the truck in a negligent manner and applying brake, the impact was that the granite that was loaded into the Truck fell on the legs of the injured resulting in fracture. Hence, they made a complaint and claim petition was also filed seeking compensation against the Insurer. The claim petition filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga in MVC No.1268 of 2015 came to be dismissed by its order dated 08th November 2016 against the insurer fastening the liability on the owner. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal is that the people are not supposed to travel in the truck since the space is meant only for transporting the goods. Against that order, this appeal is filed seeking to fasten the liability on the insurer.
2. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has committed an error which has resulted in fastening the liability on the owner instead of Insurer since the policy covers the risk of three persons which means and include the driver, cleaner and also the worker.
Though served none appears for owner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurer submits that the liability is rightly fastened on the owner since the workers were travelling on the body contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also gone through the lower court records. It is admitted as also found from Exhibit P2 and evidence of PW1 that they were travelling on the body along with granite and when the driver of the lorry negligently moved and applied the brake, the granite that was loaded, fell on the legs of the claimant and he suffered fracture. This admission shows that they were travelling in the body of the truck which they are not entitled to travel. If at all there is any negligence and the liability has to be fastened, it is to be fastened on the owner only. In view of the legal position that in exceptional circumstances it applies to three persons, i.e. the police in uniform, owner of the goods and the owner of the lorry. In the instant case, the claimant does not belong to any of the above categories. Under the circumstance, we hold that rightly the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner and the same is not to be found fault with, in view of the legal position and also in view of the evidence placed on record. We do not find any ground reasons for interference. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed with a further direction to the owner to satisfy the award within a period of eight weeks.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE lnn