NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. FLORRENTINA HILARIO GONSALVES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition and the m. f. a. arise from the judgment and award dated 2. 6. 1994 given in m. v. c. No. 579 of 1990 and in m. v. c. No. 747 of 1990 on the file of the district judge acting as m. a. c. t. at karwar. The tribunal after having held that the injuries to the claimants have been caused due to negligence in driving of the vehicle in question by the driver of the vehicle. It further held that claimants in m. v. c. No. 579 of 1990 and in m. v. c. No. 747 of 1990 were entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,750 and Rs. 80,000 respectively and awarded the same to the petitioners in two cases with costs and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The tribunal fastened the liability jointly and severally on the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company, namely, the owner of the vehicle who is respondent No. 2 in the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner before this court. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the tribunal the insurance company has come up before this court for exercising of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 115 of the civil procedure code.

(2.) THE national insurance co. Ltd. Had filed the revision and m. f. a.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sown raju, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in revision petition and for the appellant in miscellaneous first appeal. The only point that has been urged before me by the learned counsel for the insurance company in the revision petition is that the vehicle in question has been the goods vehicle which was a public carriage and it was used under public carriage permit. Learned counsel contended that the court below acted illegally as well as exceeded its jurisdiction when it fastened the liability for payment of compensation on the insurance company particularly in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd, V. Dundamma, 1992 ACJ 1 (Karnataka ). Learned counsel contended that the goods vehicles are not meant for the use as passengers service vehicle. He further contended that the principle of law laid down in dundamma's case is that under Section 95 of the old act which is analogous to Section 147, it is not obligatory that insurance policy in respect of goods vehicle must cover the liability in respect of death or bodily injury to the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle other than the driver and the employees within the prescribed limited number. The carrying of passengers in a goods vehicle is quite contrary to the Provisions of the motor vehicles Act, as such the insurance company has not been liable to reimburse compensation awarded against owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel contended that as such the order making insurance company liable to pay along with the owner has been illegal and without jurisdiction or it has been in excess of jurisdiction. As such to the extent the award has fastened the liability on the insurance company is illegal as well as it is in excess of jurisdiction vested in the tribunal, therefore, the appeal and the revision petition may be allowed. If revision is not maintainable in one case this court has got supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution. This court in exercise thereof may set aside that part of the order by which the liability has been fastened on the insurance company.