Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

The Divisional Manager v. Suresh Dyamanagouda @ Timmanagouda Patil And Ors

The Divisional Manager v. Suresh Dyamanagouda @ Timmanagouda Patil And Ors

(High Court Of Karnataka (circuit Bench At Dharwad))

MFA NO.22202/2010(MV) | 14-09-2021

1. The insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by MACT, Bailhongal in MVC No.3355/2006 dated 19.12.2009. Respondent No.1 was claimant, respondent No.2 was the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.02.D.1429, which was insured with the appellant insurance company.

2. Respondent No.1 has filed petition under Section 166 of Motor vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injury sustained in M.V. accident which took place on 21.06.2006 at about 00.30 hours when respondent No.1 was traveling by sitting in truck tanker bearing registration No.KA.02.D.1429 on NH- 4A road at Hanakal village, Khanapur taluk by that time the driver of the said truck driving in high speed in rash and negligent manner and turtled down by the side of the road and caused the accident, due to which respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries. Respondent No.1 filed petition for grant of compensation in M.V.C.No.3355/2006 before MACT, Bailhongal. The appellant who was respondent No.2 in the said case filed written statement and taken up the contention that the respondent No.1 was unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle and the risk is not covered and therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

3. Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18. The appellant-insurer has not led any evidence. The tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence has allowed the petition and granted the compensation of Rs.65,300/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. and directed the appellant-insurance company to deposit the same. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and award in the present appeal.

4. The only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the tribunal has grossly erred in fastening liability on the insurer in respect of passengers carried in the tanker wherein the risk of escort duty persons are not covered under the policy.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No.1 has not produced any documents to show that he was on escort duty in the tanker at the time of the accident and he was attached to the Karnataka State Beverages Ltd., (KSBL).

6. The vehicle bearing registration No.KA.02.D.1429 was attached to KSBL and it was carrying spirit at the time of accident. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that he was on escort duty in the said vehicle on behalf of KSBL. Services of respondent No.1 was provided to KSBL by Industrial Protection Force, Dharwad. Ex.P17 is the certificate issued by Industrial Protection Force, wherein it is certified that respondent No.1 was working as escort guard in the vehicle truck (tanker) bearing registration No.KA.02.D.1429 on 20.06.2006. Respondent No.1 who has been examined as PW1 has stated in his chief examination that, on 20.06.2006 on behalf of KSBL through Industrial Protection Force, he was traveling as escort in the tanker filled with spirit bearing registration No.KA.02.D.1429 and it was traveling from Goa-Ponda to Bangalore and at that time the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tanker. The said evidence of PW1 has not been denied in the cross examination. Therefore, it remained unchallenged. The said evidence itself establishes that respondent No.1 whose services are provided by Industrial Protection Force to KSBL and he was traveling in the vehicle bearing registration No.KA.02.D.1429 filled with spirit as a escort. Respondent No.1 was traveling to protect the spirit carried in the tanker. Therefore, respondent No.1 is traveling in the goods vehicle as a owner of the goods. As per the cover note issued by the appellant dated 15.11.2005, the tanker was licenced to carrying capacity 1+2. Therefore, respondent No.1 is not an unauthorized passenger traveling in a goods vehicle as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation awarded. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the tribunal.

Advocate List

  • SMT. PREETHI SHASHANK, ADV.

  • SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV. FOR R1 R2-SERVED

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Eq Citations
  • LQ/KarHC/2021/6781
Head Note

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss.147 and 149 — Compensation — Liability of insurer — Goods vehicle carrying spirit — Claimant-passenger traveling in goods vehicle as escort to protect spirit carried in the goods vehicle — Held, claimant is traveling in goods vehicle as a owner of the goods — Insurance company is liable to pay compensation awarded