Skip to content


Munibyrappa Vs. K. Ramaraju and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous First Appeal No. 951 of 1979
Judge
Reported in[1983]54CompCas551(Kar); ILR1981KAR815; 1981(2)KarLJ253
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110B
AppellantMunibyrappa
RespondentK. Ramaraju and ors.
Respondent AdvocateC. Laxminarayana Rao, ;C.K. Kambayanda Rao and ;S.G. Bhagawan, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....59/1988]section 163-a; [chidananda ullal & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] compensation inadequacy of appealed against- applicability of section 163a held, the claimants whose annual income is not more that rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under section 163-a of the act. the claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the ii schedule of the act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. the award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. the note appended to column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. further,..........s. 110b of the motor vehicles act, 1939, the tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the insurance company. section 110b of the motor vehicles act, inter alia, states that in making the award, the claims tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. 3. the tribunal has no doubt made a joint decree against the owner, insurer and driver. the tribunal ought to have further specified the liability of the insurance company. the total liability of the insurance company for third party risk is limited to rs. 50,000. what is awarded by the tribunal is much less than that. therefore, the tribunal ought to have directed that the entire amount awarded along.....
Judgment:

Sabhahit, J.

1. This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle and is directed against the judgment and award dated August 8, 1978, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, In M.C. (MVC) No. 8 of 1975, on its file, awarding Rs. 23,600 as compensation from respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of payment along with costs before the Tribunal.

2. The only grievance made out by the appellant is that under s. 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the insurance company. Section 110B of the Motor Vehicles Act, inter alia, states that in making the award, the claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be.

3. The Tribunal has no doubt made a joint decree against the owner, insurer and driver. The Tribunal ought to have further specified the liability of the insurance company. The total liability of the insurance company for third party risk is limited to Rs. 50,000. What is awarded by the Tribunal is much less than that. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have directed that the entire amount awarded along with interest and costs shall be paid by the insurance company, respondent No. 2, in the appeal. Hence, this appeal is entitled to succeed.

4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified by further directing that the entire compensation awarded at Rs. 23,600 along with interest and costs before the Tribunal shall be paid over to the claimants, by the insurance company, namely, United Fire and General Insurance Company, arrayed as respondent No. 2, in the appeal.

5. No costs of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //