LAWS(KAR)-2011-3-428

KAMALAPPA MANAPPA KABBUR, S/O. MANAPPA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., HUBLI, BY ITS MANAGER AND THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, L.E.A. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, DHARWAD, BY ITS MANAGER

Decided On March 03, 2011
Kamalappa Manappa Kabbur, S/O. Manappa Appellant
V/S
New India Assurance Company Ltd., Hubli, By Its Manager And The United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, L.E.A. Complex, 1St Floor, Dharwad, By Its Manager Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by the Insurance Company under section );">173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act are directed against the order and award dated 30.03.2005 passed in common MVC Nos. 246/1995, 247/1995, 248/1995 and 999/1995 corresponding to M.F.A.No. 6005/2005 and MVC No. 246/1995 corresponding to M.F.A. No. 6004/2005 on the common ground that even when the Insurance Company was not liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle, in the present case impleaded as the 2nd respondent in these two appeals on the ground that the Insurance Company has not issued a policy in respect of the offending vehicle a truck bearing No. MCY -4397 causing an accident on 19.01.1999 giving raise to multiple claims. Submission of Sri. N.R. Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company is that the Tribunal has committed an error in law in fastening the joint liability on the Insurance Company even when the Insurance Company had not issued the policy to cover the risk of the owner of the offending vehicle on the day when the accident took place and therefore to this extent the order and award of the Tribunal warrants correction in these two appeals.

(2.) WHAT is urged is that when there was no policy at all on the date of the accident issued by the appellant, no liability arises in law on the Insurance Company and therefore the order and award is bad in law.

(3.) THIS finding is based on evidence on record and therefore the Tribunal has correctly concluded to pass a joint award against the Insurance Company also. No merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.