I. SRI. NAGAPPA NINGAPPA DASAPPANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS v. M/S. JALC() AUTOMOBILES, ENGINEERING CO. LTD., DODDANKUDI INDUSTRIA AREA

I) /0 N AGAPPA DASAPPANAVAR, HINDU, FEMALE, MINOR NOW AGED 11 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND THE FIRST RESPONDENT NAGAPRk DASAPPANAVAR. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R.0 DEVALAPUR, TALUK BA] LHONGAL, BELCAUM I)ISTRICT, 591 140.

#4. M/S. JAICO AUTOMOBILES ENGINEERING CO., LTD.. DODDANKUDI INDUSTRIAL AREA. MAHADEVAPURA. BANGALORE - 560 048. (BY SRI.LOKESH MALAVALLI FOR RI TO R3) (RI R3 MINORS, Ri BY B. PRABRU, ADV.,) RESPONDENTS THIS MFA 15 FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.4.2006 PASSED IN MVC NO.2292/01 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL .JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MEMBER, ADDITIONAL. MACT, L3AILHONGAL. AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,50,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6°4. P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION. IN Mfl CROB No.122Oj BETWEEN: I. SRI. NAGAPPA NINGAPPA DASAPPANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS. 0CC: SERVICE &. AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL), R/O: DEVALAPI.JR. TAI1: F3AILHONGAL. a :3: DiSTRICT: I3ELXIAUM.

#2. GAYATHRI NAGAPRA DASAPPANAVAR, AGE: 10 YEARS, C)CC: STUDENT. RIO DEVALAPUR, TAL: BAILI (ONGAL DISTRICT: BELGAUM, GUARDIAN - APPELLANT Nc). 1

#3. LAXMI NAG APPA DASAPPANAVAR, AGE: 6 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT. RIO: DEGAC)N, TAL: BIALHONGAL, DISTRICT: BELGAUM, GUARDIAN - APPELLANT No.1 .CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV..) AND:

#1. M/S. JALC() AUTOMOBILES, ENGINEERING CO. LTD., DODDANKUDI INDUSTRIA AREA. MAI-IADEVAPUR. BANGALORE (OWNER 01” THE TRUCK BEARING No. KA-0i /8740;

#2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., JAYANAGAR. BANGALORE-SoO 001 THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT SHANBAG CHAMBERS, K1RLOSKAR ROAD. BEIGAUM. (INSURER OF TRUCK BEARING No.KA-O1 /8740) (POLICY / YR. No.2001/802 VALIDITY FROM 15/4/2000 to 14/42001) :3. IMAMSAB GUDUSAI3 BAGAWAN, AGE: MAJ( )R, 0CC: AGRICIJLTtJRE, R/O HIREBAGEWAD1. TAL/DIST - BELGAUM (OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILOR NO.KA-22!T-643 AND KA-22T-644j) (13Y SRI.B. PRAF3HU DEVARU KUR RI) .RESPONDENTS & :4: (BY SRI. M.K.SAUDAGAR FOR R2) (R3 NOTICE DISPENSED wm•i; THIS MFA CR08 IS FILED U/U 41 RULE 22 OF CPU AGAINST THE1IUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 7/4/2006 PASSED iN MVC NO.2292/200 I ON THE FILE OF THE PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM MACT, BAILHONGAL. SEEKING COMPENSATION PETITION EN1IANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. AND FOR IN MFA No.7078/2006: BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ASAF ALl ROAD, NEW DELHI AND ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE AT LEO SI-lOPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BANCIALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. C13V. SRI.M.k £OVDA4,Ak.Ah.J D ...APPELLANT

#1. KUM.LAXMI, D/O NAGAPPA DASAPPANAVAR. HINDU, FEMALE, MINOR, NOW AGED ii YEARS, DULY REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SRI. NAGAPPA DASAPPANAVAR. RU DEVALAPUR. TALUK BAILHONGAL. BEGAUM DISTRICT - 590 140. 2. M/S. 1JAICO AU1X)MOBILES ENGINEERING CC).. LTI).. DODDANKUDI INDUSTRIAL AREA, MAHADEVAPLIRA. E3ANOALORE - 560 04$. .RESPON DENTS (BY SRI.LUKESII MALAVALLI FOR Ri. To R3j (R2, R3 MINORS, Ri BY B. PRAE3HU, ADV.,) THIS MFA IS FiLED LI’S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JU1)GMNT AND AWARD DATED 7.4.200o PASSED IN . IUDOI MW i( ).22) i/UI ON TILE FILE OF THE CIVIl. -I ‘.j? )\ • . \ Vi’I\( ; 1 ‘ • r w ‘ r ‘

0.1’! \.\ t i’ ‘i ‘iii . I ‘ J’ i i ; I’i • • 1’ I’ ‘I. •, ‘I )• t ‘‘1 ) I ‘ •. tI ( 1,. . , (1• ‘I K.LWANJUIIH J JUDCiMFN’ Its’ • ‘. I Ct )‘ •• 1(1 g, •a• I.i a •“:‘ 1’ C hI )IAC I.. Bz:I€.• •?,... u — •_! •‘• ). lIst ‘I 1,3 i’ii 3215 )((] cic.1 — it ‘S •,lt (iSa ft. :. %111’l ( 11 ( •1I C F. •flj I t ‘bt it.i1 • ••.• ‘ •: g •‘JTfl Y a €1 £ • •I• t’ —.‘ t•1 Ill I a). •— •jjt •t •ii •sl. — a I 1 • • t •, I. ‘• 1’ I. ‘a I. • I • J7t.fl• !e I • ij 1c ‘ • t • !‘ Li a ‘( ‘ j b_ut. C I.:z . ‘ I I i .Uti.;tI’iI If. ri. .‘ !flc,; [ji ‘j.I., . .. C .‘- - I i t!:”s: •, -. SIi’iI:a1’ i. :: •t., ; •1 L 1 I i • •t r’t., •%.j•s •lu •j ii • uit • •. 1_ ( • •uL ..i • I L • C. :8: the Hon bic Supreme Court iii Sarla Vcrmti’s ease. Therefore he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal and allow cross objections.

#9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the following two points would arise for our consideration: a) Whether the findings of the Tribunal that ii n cmi horised claim a it ts ZL’ere passengers Company has to pay and recover amount isjust and proper? Insurance b) Whether the claimants are entuleci enhanced compensation?

#10. Sofar as point (a) is concerned act mit tedlv the claimants have pleaded that they were travelling with the goods. They have also stated in the pleading they had hired the vehicle by paving a sum of Rs.800/- as hire charges. If it is so. ‘hen the owner of the Truck and driver have not disputed this fact, Insurance Corn panv cannot be pennit ted to cuntemt ‘S •I.• : tt • •‘. :• .11 •.i: •: • • 1’ It. I ; I., LI ‘S .1 ) SI ) ‘. I S •• ••t•• •i• ‘.. !:e ‘i. ‘:‘- i’ . •1 •• —‘ •icI ‘te Ii It C IIU” ‘C. z: C ‘ :n 14% 1! •1. .1 S ‘4) . \ 1 II —4 .t . L. . It Tt i)1 Si 1 C I 4: , .11! • I ‘r r :t’. • : . •t 1 •. : . i’ 1: .. I t 1

#0. .% •••. . . •

1.•: S 10: Company cannot be permitted to contend that liability saddled on it has to be absolved.

#12. Be that as it may. As stated supra when the owner of the Truck is not disputing the privity of contract between the claimants and him in the absence of contra-material placed by the Insurance Company even if the Court has held that the claimants were travelling without goods, this Court cannot set-aside the findings the Tribunal because of reasons supplemented by us. In the circumstances these two appeals have to be dismissed.

#13. Sofar as cross objection is concerned, we have carefully considered the judgment of the Tribunal. Considering the nature of income and avocation of the deceased. ii. is not a case for enhancement. Accordingly the appeals as vc1l as the cross objection are dismissed. cs’ ? 3 p 3 p — 0 0 . < a H . t i c t i 0c . 3 p a a - p3 Da r r 0 : - t P L r . ‘ Q C l 4 — ‘ l C r . i r l r c c i t l f t 4 - ±