DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. DODDA DURGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NATIONALIZED insurance companies after issuing policies sought to be projected as comprehensive policies covering all sorts of risks of the insured-owners of motor vehicles, when are confronted with awards passed by motor accident claims tribunals at the instance of the injured victims or dependents of a victim who has breathed his last in the accident, come up with all sorts of fantastic grounds and points in an appeal even when having not made good any such defence before the tribunal in spite of extending an opportunity to defend their cases and even without any pleading or supporting material having been made good before the tribunal, start raising all questions of law that too on the premise that such law is settled by the Supreme Court, even when the fact situation in no way is anywhere near to the situation to which the law can be made applicable.

(2.) THE present appeal by the appellant-insurance company is nothing short of above description. In the present appeal, the insurance company is questioning the joint liability fastened on it along with the insured to meet the claimants dependents of a person who was travelling along with his goods in a Bajaj tempo vehicle, which meet with an accident due to the negligence driving of the driver of the vehicle, causing grievous injuries to the goods carrying passenger and his subsequent death also, giving cause for the dependents of the deceased parents, sisters and brothers coming up with an application for compensation in MVC No 123 of 2009 on the file of Principle District & Sessions Judge & MACT -1, Bellary.

(3.) ON the other hand, Sri T Hanamareddy, learned counsel for the respondents, who has entered caveat on behalf of the respondents, points out that it is not as though the policy was mere act policy but that it was a comprehensive policy and the insurer had collected premium of Rs.3,106/- in all, which included the third party claim premium Rs.1,530/- and also the policy being termed as a 'comprehensive policy' and therefore submits that there is no way of the insurance company to wriggle out of the liability, as the policy is much more than the statutory policy and being a comprehensive policy covering such risks also and has also pointed out that the capacity as indicated in the registration certificate of the vehicle, which is mentioning as 1+1, which means that in addition to the driver, one passenger is also permitted and the deceased being a passenger accompanying the goods can never be characterized as an unauthorized passenger and the insurance company has taken up all sorts of untenable contentions to defeat the claims of the dependents of the deceased.