UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PUSHPALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this petition is United India Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Manager. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 18.7.2006 passed in M.V.C. No. 5649 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2), petitioner has presented the instant writ petition only insofar as it relates to fixing the liability on the petitioner United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at the rate of 40 per cent as per the award passed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that there is no liability as such in respect of the goods carriage vehicle for compensating the passengers.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the claimants along with few others were travelling on 7.7.2003 in a lorry bearing No. KA 05-B 2889 in order to visit the temple at Chitamani Road, Bangalore. But unfortunately, on the way, there was an accident involving the lorry in which the claimants were travelling with another lorry bearing No. KA 05-AB 5999 coming from the opposite direction. Thus, as a result of the said accident, the claimants sustained injuries. Therefore, claimants have filed the claim petition as referred above on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore. The said claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called 'Claims Tribunal' for brevity) on 18.7.2006 and the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed, fixing the liability at the rate of 40 per cent on the petitioner insurance company and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount. Thereafter, liberty was reserved to petitioner insurance company to recover the said amount from the owner of the lorry bearing No. KA 05-B 2889.

(3.) It is the further case of appellant that there is no liability at all on the insurance company in respect of the goods carriage vehicles for passengers. Therefore, when there is no liability at all, the Claims Tribunal ought not to have fixed the liability at the rate of 40 per cent on the insurance company and reserved liberty to insurance company to thereafter recover the said sum from the lorry owner. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this court in host of judgments. Therefore, petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, only insofar as fixing the liability on the insurance company at the rate of 40 per cent and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the lorry, is constrained to redress its grievance by presenting the instant writ petition.