ORIENAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HUSENSAB GOUSUSAB TALIKAORTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY THIS BATCH OF writ PETITIONS, THE PETITIONER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'the INSURER') PRAYS TO SET ASIDE THE COMMON JUDGMENT AND SEPARATE AWARDS DATED 20. 8. 98 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, SAUNDATTI ('the TRIBUNAL' IN SHORT)MADE IN M. V. C. NOS. 1161, 1162, 1564 and 1565 OF 1997 FASTENING THE LIABILITY on THE INSURER TO PAY THE COMPENSATION amounts UNDER THE SAID AWARDS TO THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMANTS-AWARD HOLDERS.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, PETITIONER WAS THE INSURER OF THE OFFENDING HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE, i. E. , LORRY BEARING NO. MYL 7471 OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 (IN SHORT 'the INSURED') AND that THE SAID VEHICLE WAS COVERED BY THE act POLICY OF THE INSURER AT THE MATERIAL time WHEN IT MET WITH ACCIDENT ON 6. 5,96 while IT WAS TRANSPORTING THE INJURED VICTIMS WHO WERE TRAVELLING THEREIN ALONG with THEIR GOODS. THE ONLY GROUND INVOLVING THE POINT OF LAW, ON WHICH THE LIABILITY of THE INSURER UNDER THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARDS CHALLENGED IS THAT THE insurer HAVING SATISFIED SEVEN OTHER AWARDS of THE TRIBUNAL PASSED UNDER THE SAME common JUDGMENT IN M. V. C. NOS. 815 OF 1996; 81, 1815 AND 1589 OF 1997; 551, 554 and 555 OF 1998 FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENT of RULE 100 OF THE KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1989 ('the RULES OF 1989' FOR short), THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE IN LAW TO satisfy THE IMPUGNED AWARDS ALSO.

(3.) IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE CLAIMS of THE INJURED VICTIMS/dependants OF THE deceased VICTIMS IN ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED cases HAD ARISEN FROM THE SAID ACCIDENT involving THE SAID VEHICLE. THE INSURER AND r-L OWNER WERE RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 2 respectively BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL; AND R-2, r-3, R-4 AND R-5 HEREIN WERE THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMANTS IN THE SAID M. V. C. NOS. 1161, 1162, 1564 AND 1565 OF 1997 BEFORE the TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE aforestated SEVEN AWARDS IN OTHER CLAIM cases OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED HAVE BEEN satisfied BY THE INSURER IN DISCHARGE OF ITS liability IN TERMS OF RULE 100 OF THE RULES of 1989. THEREFORE, THE ONLY POINT FOR DETERMINATION WHICH NOW CALLS FOR IS WHETHER the FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE INSURER is ALSO LIABLE TO SATISFY ITS FOUR OTHER AWARDS impugned HEREIN IS LEGALLY CORRECT OR NOT.