UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SHARADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT in all these appeals is United India Insurance company Limited, represented by its Manager. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 18th July, 2006 passed in M. V. C. Nos. 5789/2003, 5647/2003 and 5648/2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2), common appellant has presented the instant Miscellaneous First Appeals, only insofar as it relates to fixing the liability on the appellant - United India company at the rate of 40% 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 7th July, 2003 in a lorry bearing No. KA-05/b-2889 in order to visit the temple at Chintamani 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, the 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 18th July, 2006 and the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed, fixing the liability at the rate of 40% on the common appellant - Insurance Company and directed the Insurance Company to pay the said amount. Thereafter, liberty was reserved to appellant-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% 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, appellant, 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% and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the lorry, is constrained to renders its grievance by presenting the instant Miscellaneous First Appeals.