THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUSHEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSURER is in appeal challenging the correctness and legality of judgment and award passed by MACT, Bhadravati dated 12.03.2009 in MVC No. 212/98 where under claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act has been allowed in part and ordering for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,67,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. directing the appellant -insurer to indemnify the said award and recover the same from Owner -Insured to an extent of 50%.

(2.) I have heard arguments of Sri Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurer and Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, Sri Rajendra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V. Prakash for respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 is served, unrepresented. Notice to respondent No. 5 has been held sufficient vide order dated 16.10.2012. Respondent No. 6 is served, represented, but none appears. Perused the records secured from the tribunal.

(3.) DEPENDANTS of Sri Rangaswamy filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 5,65,000/ -contending inter alia that on 22.3.93 he was travelling in a trailor bearing No. MES 5261 belonging to respondent No. 2 which trailor was attached to the tractor bearing registration No. KA 14 328 belonging to first respondent, and while deceased was travelling in the said vehicle he fell down and came under the wheels of the trailor and sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. As such compensation was sought. Appellant insurer on service of summons appeared and filed its statement of objections denying its liability contending inter alia that it need not indemnify since trailor in which the deceased was travelling was not insured with it and as such question of paying 50% of the compensation awarded and recovering the same from the second respondent/owner of trailer would not arise. Tribunal on appreciation of evidence allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,67,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. by fixing the liability jointly and severely on respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and directed the appellant -insurer to indemnify the award in its entirety on the ground that the tractor was insured by it and permitted to recover 50% of the award from the owner of the trailor i.e., the second respondent.