NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. DEVAPPA S/0. BALAPPA KUMBAR, MAJOR, K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER
Case at a glance
- Bench
- L NARAYANA SWAMY
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. On the ground of quantum, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and as per the Doctor’s evidence, the tribunal has taken 50% disability, and has awarded just compensation. By looking it from any angle, I find the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is…
- Para 44. DEVAPPA S/0. BALAPPA KUMBAR, MAJOR, K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER KOPPAL DEPOT. JABBALAGUDDA, KOPPAL KSRTC, REP. BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KOPPAL G.VIJAYA KUMAR S/O.RAGHAVENDRA RAO OWNER BUS NO.KA-37/3993 MUNIRABAD DAM, TALUK AND DIST.: KOPPAL, RAJA HUSSAIN S/O.HUSSAINPEERA MAJOR, LAXMI CAMP GANGAVATHI KOPPAL. (BY SRI.F.S.DABALI, ADV. FOR R2.…
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY M,F.A NO.15213/2007 (MV) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ADMN. OFFICER (MAC), NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE 1, REP. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. GULBARGA. (BY SRI.LAXMAN B.MANNODDAR, ADVOCATE) APPELLANT AND:
DEVAPPA S/0. BALAPPA KUMBAR, MAJOR, K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER KOPPAL DEPOT. JABBALAGUDDA, KOPPAL KSRTC, REP. BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KOPPAL G.VIJAYA KUMAR S/O.RAGHAVENDRA RAO OWNER BUS NO.KA-37/3993 MUNIRABAD DAM, TALUK AND DIST.: KOPPAL, RAJA HUSSAIN S/O.HUSSAINPEERA MAJOR, LAXMI CAMP GANGAVATHI KOPPAL. (BY SRI.F.S.DABALI, ADV. FOR R2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL, ADV. FOR R4. RESPONDENTS N THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.09.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO. 126/2005 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MEMBER, MACT, GANGAVATHI, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.3,50,000/- INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal against the judgment and award dated 12.09.2007 in MVC No.126/2005 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Member, MACT, Gangavathi on the grounds of liability and quantum. On the ground of liability it should have been fastened on the KSRTC, since the bus in question was hired in its favour. The said question is answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsum and others reported in (2011)8 Supreme Court Cases 142. It is held that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
Operative part
On the ground of quantum, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- and as per the Doctor’s evidence, the tribunal has taken 50% disability, and has awarded just compensation. By looking it from any angle, I find the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the MACT. Vnp* Sd! 3UDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.