Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 707 (KAR)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Bandenawaj

2007-10-30

JAWAD RAHIM, V.G.SABHAHIT

body2007
JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J: These three appeals arise out of a common judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T., Bijapur, in M.V.Cs. 617/99, 620/99 and 1201/99 dated 1-7-2003. In these appeals filed by Insurance Company, the contention of the appellant is that liability of 12 passengers and driver (12 + 1) had been covered and accordingly, the Insurance Company has satisfied the award based on the judgments passed III M.V. 9 637/99,632/99, 633/99, 634ro9, 636ro9, 640ro9, 64V99, 642/99, 644/99, 645/99, 646/99, 647/99, and therefore, in the present claim petitions, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. In a motor accident that occurred on 18-12-1998 at about 10.00 a.m., persons traveling in a maxi cab bearing No. KA-29/2400 sustained injuries and one person died due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. Claim petitions were filed by the injured and LRs. of the deceased. The Tribunal after enquiry, passed the award in all the above 12 cases. In the claim petitions, out of which these appeals are filed viz., MVCs. 617/99, 620/99 and 1201/99, the Tribunal held hat the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle insured with the appellant, and that he appellant is liable to satisfy the awards, in view of the proviso to the clause in the policy for the purpose of calculating 12 passengers for whom premium has been collected. According to the said proviso, any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as two persons and any child in arms not exceeding three years will be disregarded. Therefore, it was held that having regard to the fact that the awards which the appellant has satisfied were in respect of minors who had sustained injuries, the liability of the Insurance Company would not exceed 12 passengers. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no premium has been collected for the purpose of calculation of ‘any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as two persons and any child in arms not exceeding three years will be disregarded.’ There is no merit in this contention. 4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no premium has been collected for the purpose of calculation of ‘any three children not exceeding 15 years of age will be reckoned as two persons and any child in arms not exceeding three years will be disregarded.’ There is no merit in this contention. As it is clear from the contents of Ex.D 1, insurance policy made available for our perusal, the proviso referred to above only provides for calculation of 12 passengers for whom premium has been collected, and the question of collecting premium in respect of person covered under the policy would not arise as it explains the mode in which the claim in respect of 12 passengers has to be calculated. 5. It is not in dispute that among the 12 awards already satisfied by the appellant Insurance Company, all the petitioners were by minors who had sustained injuries. Therefore, in view of the proviso, if three children not exceeding 15 years were claimants, it would have to be reckoned as two persons. The Tribunal, after calculation, has held that the claim would not exceed for 12 persons. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that since no premium has been collected in respect of the said proviso, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. It is clear from the policy and it is also not disputed by the Insurance Company that premium has been collected in respect of 12 passengers and in view of the said calculation as per the proviso, on the basis of undisputed facts, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the awards passed-in MVCs. 617/99, 620/99 and 1201/99. It is clear from a perusal of the material placed before the Tribunal that no person on behalf of the Insurance Company is examined and the contents of Ex.D1 have been got marked. No other document is got marked. Therefore, having regard to the contents of Ex.D1 itself, it is clear that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the appellant is liable to pay compensation in view of the proviso referred to above, is justified and does not call for interference. No other document is got marked. Therefore, having regard to the contents of Ex.D1 itself, it is clear that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the appellant is liable to pay compensation in view of the proviso referred to above, is justified and does not call for interference. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that as per the proviso, no separate premium is collected. It is clear from IMT 12 clause that it provides only for the mode of calculation of 12 persons. Admittedly, as per Ex.D1 at IMT 12, a clause has been included and premium has been collected in respect of the said clause. Therefore, collection of premium separately under the proviso does not arise. 7. Accordingly, we hold that the appeals are devoid of merit and proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The appeals are dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants in accordance with law.