Branch Manager, Branch Office, New India Assurance Company Limited, Chitradurga v. Revanasiddappa
2009-09-01
N.ANANDA
body2009
DigiLaw.ai
Judgment : These appeals have arisen out of common judgment made in MVC Nos. 153,151,152,154, 155 and 150 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga. 2. I have heard Sri A.K. Bhat, learned Counsel for Insurance Company 3. The learned Counsel for Insurance Company would submit that vehicle involved in the accident i.e., jeep bearing No. MEG 3073 was insured with Insurance Company under an Act policy. Therefore, the policy did not cover the risk of occupants of jeep. The Tribunal has accepted the case of Insurance Company and ordered the Insurance Company to pay compensation to claimants and recover the same form the insured. The jeep was insured under ‘liability only policy’. The insured had paid basic premium of Rs. 700/- to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver upto Rs. 2,00,000/- and risk of one employee, in terms of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The policy did not cover the risk of occupants. 4. This Court in a decision in the case of Geetha v. Subrahmanya (since deceased) by L.Rs and Another ILR 2008 Kar. 4112, has held Insurance Company has no liability towards death or bodily injury to any person other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. This Court has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Others AIR 2006 SC 1576 : (2006)4 SCC 404 : 2006 AIR SCW 1822. 5. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that Insurance Company has issued Act policy and it did not cover the risk of occupants of jeep. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified. Compensation awarded by Tribunal shall be paid by Sri Revanasiddappa/owner of vehicle, who is the I respondent before Tribunal. The claim petitions against the appellant/Insurance Company, arrayed as II respondent before Tribunal are dismissed. The amount deposited by Insurance Company shall be refunded to Insurance Company. Parties are directed to bear their costs.