Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 260 (KAR)

H. Kanthamma v. S. Rudrappa

2009-04-01

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2009
Judgment : V. Jagannathan, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. M.F.A. No. 3254/2007 is filed by petitioners -4, 5 and 6 before the M.A.C.T. and they are aggrieved by the award passed by the M.A.C.T. to the extent of directing the award amount being paid to petitioners -1 to 3 and dismissing the claim petition as against petitioners -4 to 6. Cross-objections is filed by the insurer questioning the liability put on it and, as both these appeal and cross-objections arise out of the same judgment of the M.A.C.T., they have been disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The learned Counsel for the insurer in the cross-objections contended that the Insurance Company has satisfied the award amount but it may be given the liberty to recover the same from the insured because, deceased Siddappa was the pillion rider in the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company and relying on the Apex Court ruling reported in AIR 2008 SC 2729 , it is argued that the liability on the Insurance Company will not arise in respect of the death of a pillion rider. Therefore, the learned Counsel argued that since the Insurance Company has already paid the award amount, it may be given liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner i.e., the insured. 4. As far as the objections raised by the learned Counsel for the claimants i.e., petitioners -1 to 3 before the Tribunal concerning the maintainability of the cross-objections as regards the liability is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company referred to a ruling of this Court reported in 2006 (3) Kar. L.J. 149 to submit that the cross-objections by the Insurance Company questioning its liability is maintainable since the appeal is in continuance of the original proceedings and the entire matter of the claim will be before the appellate Court. 5. Having thus heard both sides insofar as the objections to the cross-objections being maintainable is concerned, in view of the aforesaid ruling of this Court, the said objections do not survive for consideration. As far as the appeal preferred by petitioners -4 to 6 before the Tribunal is concerned, the M.A.C.T. dismissed their petition mainly on the ground that deceased Siddappa had two wives and there was a compromise entered into between the parties in JMFC Court at Chitradurga and as per the said compromise in Crl. Misc. As far as the appeal preferred by petitioners -4 to 6 before the Tribunal is concerned, the M.A.C.T. dismissed their petition mainly on the ground that deceased Siddappa had two wives and there was a compromise entered into between the parties in JMFC Court at Chitradurga and as per the said compromise in Crl. Misc. No. 31/1994 on the file of the learned Munsiff and JMFC at Holalkere, the matter was compromised based on the compromise petition filed by the parties and in view of the said proceedings before the criminal Court in the aforementioned Crl. Misc. No.31/1994, the learned Judge of the Court below, while disposing of the claim petition observed that pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties before the criminal Court, only petitioners-1 to 3 are entitled for compensation and accordingly it dismissed the claim petition as against petitioners -4 to 6, who are the appellants before this Court in this appeal. In view of the reasons assigned by the M.A.C.T. for dismissal of the claim petition as against the present appellants, who were petitioners -4 to 6 are concerned, the order passed by the M.A.C.T. requires no interference. 6. Coming to the liability part of it, since the Insurance Company has deposited the award amount and in view of the ruling referred to by the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company reported in AIR 2008 SC 2729 , the Insurance Company is, therefore, entitled to recover the amount from the vehicle owner i.e., the insured, in the same proceedings. 7. To the above extent, the award passed by the Tribunal is modified by giving the Insurance Company liberty recover the amount from the insured. As far as claimants -1 to 3 before the Tribunal are concerned, they are at liberty to withdraw the amount subject to the deposit conditions made by the Tribunal. Consequently, M.F.A. No. 3254/2007 stands dismissed and the cross-objections filed is allowed.