BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ASHOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals by the Insurer is directed against judgment and award passed in M.V.C.Nos.100 - 107/2010, 124/2010 and 587/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal, whereunder the claim petitions have been allowed in part and compensation has been awarded by fastening the liability on both the vehicles and directed the Insurer of both the vehicles namely the tempo trax bearing registration No.KA 24/M -1905 and truck bearing registration No.KA 40/3698 to indemnify the claim in the ratio of 80:20.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Insurer of tempo trax, Sri Prashant V.Mogali, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, Smt.K.M.Geetha, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the lorry and Sri M.Y.Katagi, learned counsel appearing for respondent -Insurer of lorry.

(3.) IT is the contention of Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer of the tempo trax vehicle that Tribunal committed serious error in directing the appellant -Insurer to indemnify the claims by apportioning the liability to an extent of 80% when material on record would clearly indicate and point to the fact that accident in question had occurred on account of negligent parking of the lorry bearing registration No.KA -40/3698 in the middle of the road and there has been non -consideration of material evidence namely FIR and charge -sheet filed against drivers of both vehicles and as such it has resulted in erroneously fastening the liability on the appellant - Insurer of the tempo trax to an extent of 80%. Hence, he seeks for setting aside the same and prays for entire liability being fastened on the Insured and the Insurer of the lorry.