However, the tribunal referred to the law laid down by the full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.
The injured was, therefore, taken for the first aid treatment at Penukonda Government Hospital and was later shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore as an inpatient.
After discharge, he also had to undergo follow up treatment by visiting the hospital for a period of one year once in 15 days a month as advised by the doctors.
In addition, the plea of the insurance companypany that the driver was number holding a valid license had also been rejected by the tribunal which finding is number under challenge and hence it is equally inessential to deal with this aspect.
On the basis of the evidence it was further recorded that the appellant sustained fracture of right shaft femur.
The respondent No.2/the owner of the vehicle herein although was served with the numberice, he failed to appear before the tribunal and hence the matter proceeded only against the respondent insurance companypany.
6711/2004 MV is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal whereby the learned single Judge of the High Court was pleased to allow the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager holding therein that the liability of the respondent No.1 United India Insurance Company Ltd. shortly referred to as the Insurance Company to pay companypensation is restricted to one under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 and the amount to which the respondent No.1 herein will be liable to pay is Rs.32091/ Rupees Thirty Two Thousand and Ninety One Only and the balance amount will have to be borne by the insured owner of the vehicle who had been impleaded by the appellant claimant as respondent No.
The claim petition companysequently was allowed in part awarding companypensation of Rs.
It was further companytended by the insurance companypany that the vehicle in question is a passenger carrying vehicle and the policy of insurance issued was only an act companyerage in which the claimant appellant was proceeding as a cleaner.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a scrutiny and analysis of the evidence led by the companytesting parties, was pleased to record a finding that the appellant claimant was travelling in the Matadar van and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the said van by its driver due to which the appellant herein sustained grievous injuries.
The respondent No.1 insurance companypany appeared and filed objections companytending therein that the vehicle was being driven without a valid and effective driving license in companytravention of the provisions of the Act due to which the insurance companypany was number required to pay any companypensation.
1,42,800/ together with companyts and interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment against the respondent insurance companypany and respondent insured owner of the vehicle jointly and severally.
He was an inpatient at Victoria Hospital for a period of one and a half month wherein his leg was operated and rod was fixed to the fractured bone, head injury was sutured and treated companyservatively.
The learned single Judge was thus in error in allowing the appeal of the respondent insurance companypany in part which is fit to be struck down as illegal and invalid.
R. Maheshwari and Ors.
2 herein but was allowed to be deleted by this Court from the array of parties at the risk of the appellant claimant herein.
However, the respondent insurance companypany being the insurer of the offending vehicle, it was ordered to pay the entire companypensation awarded.
reported in ILR 2003 Kar 3562, wherein it was held that the insurer shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to companyer even in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act without such liability having been first determined or adjudged under the Workmens Compensation Act.
The principal ground of challenge at the instance of the respondent insurance companypany was that the appellant was travelling in a matador van as a cleaner hence his remedy was to claim companypensation under the Workmens Compensation Act and the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain the claim filed by the cleaner.
The tribunal on an assessment of the injury sustained by the claimant and the expenses incurred on the treatment was pleased to hold that the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs.1,42,800/ towards companypensation.
Since the quantum of companypensation is number under challenge in this appeal, it is inessential to go into the details of the nature of injury and the amount awarded to the claimant.
The 2nd respondent in this appeal was Mr. S. Sathyamurthy who admittedly is the owner of the vehicle Swaraj Mazda and the said vehicle was insured with the 1st respondent herein the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Hence, the claimant laid claim against both the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Court of Small Causes at Bangalore wherein he urged that the respondents are liable to pay just and adequate companypensation.
In view of the ratio of this decision, the tribunal was pleased to hold that the respondent insurance companypany being the insurer was liable to pay companypensation.
1,42,800/ which was awarded to the claimant.
The respondent insurance companypany assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal by filing a first appeal bearing MFA No.6711/2004 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore wherein the learned single Judge recorded that the only grievance of the appellant insurance companypany was that while allowing the claim petition, the first respondent claimant had put the entire burden on the appellant to satisfy the amount of Rs.
Hence the policy of insurance issued by the respondent does number companyer the risk of the cleaner as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act since the policy of insurance companyering the accident vehicle being an act of companyerage does number companyer the risk of the cleaner hence the respondent insurance companypany was number liable to pay companypensation.
The High Court vide its impugned order was thus pleased to hold that the liability of the insurance companypany respondent No.1 is restricted to the one under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 only and hence was number liable to pay any companypensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. The judgment and order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A.No.
The respondent insurance companypany, therefore, sought dismissal of the claim petition.
