NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is by the Insurance Company. It has challenged in this appeal the legality and correctness of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 13.03.2007 passed in MVC No.5667/2006 by the MACT, Bangalore (Court of Small Causes, SCCH-15), (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claims Tribunal' for short).

(2.) THE first respondent herein viz., M.Prabhu filed his claim petition in the said MVC No.5667/2006 seeking compensation towards bodily injuries suffered by him as a result of the accident that occurred on 19.05.2006 at about 7 a.m. while he was travelling in the Maxi Cab bearing registration No.KA-03-A-847 on Anekal-Chandapura Road near Avadadenahalli Gate within the limits of Anekal P.S.

(3.) SRI O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer strongly contends that the owner of the said Maxi Cab obtained permit to ply it as contract carriage, but it was plied as Stage carrier on the said date, time and place of accident and thus, the owner of the said vehicle violated the terms of the permit and therefore, the Claims Tribunal committed serious error in fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer to pay compensation to the injured-claimant. He further contends that as could be seen from Ex.R1 insurance policy, it has been issued subject to condition that 'policy covers use of the vehicle only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Ex.R3 permit is issued by the transport authority concerned in compliance with Section 66 of M.V. Act subject to condition No.9 therein that 'the permit does not entitle the holder to use the vehicle herein described as a stage carriage or as a goods carriage for hire' and therefore, since the owner of the said vehicle violated the terms of the said policy and permit by using the vehicle (Bus) as 'stage carriage', the insurer is not liable to pay to the claimant any amount of compensation. He also contends that the Claims Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation to the injured-claimant at higher rates under various heads and therefore the quantum of compensation deserves to be reduced considerably.