ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. THUKARAMA ADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order since, they are preferred against a common judgment, but two different awards, as common questions of law do arise for consideration in these appeals and cross-objection.

(2.) ONE Sri Ramachandra was the claimant in MVC No. 1140/1990. Sri Thukarama adappa is the claimant in MVC No. 1442/ 1990. Both were injured in a motor vehicle accident and they preferred two independent claim petitions and both the claim petitions were disposed of by a common judgment on 6-12-2000 after holding a common trial. The insurance company on whom the liability to pay the award amount is foisted has preferred these appeals challenging the liability to pay the entire amount and contend that their liability is limited to the extent mentioned in the Contract of Insurance. They are not chal-lenging the quantum of compensation. Ramachandra, the claimant in MVC No. 1140/ 1990 has preferred Cross-Objection No. 74/ 2001 in MFA 1147/2001 seeking enhancement of compensation. During the pendency of these appeals he died on 16-2-2005.

(3.) THE facts in brief which has given rise to these appeals are as under :-The claimant-Ramachandra was an employee of M/s. Nayak and Sons, the owner of the Matador Van bearing No. CNO 8347. Thukarama Adappa was a representative of the owner of the goods who had hired the aforesaid Matador Van for transporting the goods of the hirer, M/s. Sangrila Biscuit company. Both these claimants were travelling in the Matador Van from Udupi towards mangalore on 16-5-1990. When the said Van reached Panambur at about 9. 30 p. m. , a bus bearing registration No. CRX 9059 dashed against this Matador Van. Due to the said accident both the claimants sustained severe injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. Both the claimants have preferred two independent claim petitions seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. To the said claim petition they have made the driver, the owner and the insurance company which had insured the Matador Van, as well as the owner, insurer and driver of the bus as party-respondents. The drivers and the owners of both the vehicles did not contest the matter. However, both the insurance companies filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim of the claimants on all grounds. However, they did not dispute the insurance coverage to the vehicles. The Oriental Insurance Company blamed the driver of the bus for the accident. In addition to that they specifically contended that, they have insured the Van and the liability if any is governed by the terms, conditions and limitations to the use of the policy issued by them. The New India Assurance Company limited contested the claim accusing the driver of the Van as the cause for the accident. On the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-Issues in MVC No. 1140/1990. dated 27-12-1993