Skip to content


United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gangamma and anr. Etc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. First Appeal Nos. 1364 to 1368 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1981(2)KarLJ480
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 95(1)
AppellantUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentGangamma and anr. Etc.
Advocates:R. Narayana, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....premises being in excess of 14 sq. meters and the carpet area being less than 14 sq. meters held, plinth means the portion of a structure between the surface of the surrounding ground and surface of the floor immediately above the ground. plinth area of a premises includes the area of space beneath the walls of a building. therefore, in finding out the measurement of the non-residential premises not only the actual space available between the walls, but also the area covered by the walls has to be taken into consideration. if the space or area beneath the walls is excluded, and only the space between the walls are taken into consideration, then it is commonly called as carpet area. it means actual usable space, where one can put a carpet. therefore, plinth area and carpet area has..........to the claimants on the ground that there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of a goods vehicle in which the concerned persons were travelling with their goods on payment of hire charges.2. the insurance company has challenged the awards of the tribunal on the ground that the decisions of this court do not speak with one voice on the liability to pay compensation in such cases and the matter therefore, requires a second look.3. shri narayana, counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention has referred to us to the decisions of this court, (1) mohiddinsab v. v. r. h. kindalkar (1973 (1) mys lj 393) and (2) smt radhabai govindarao v. p. krishnamurthy (ilr (1976) 1 kant 133).4. we have perused these two decisions. but we are unable to agree with the contention.....
Judgment:

Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. The Claims Tribunal in all these appeals following the decision of this Court in Channappa v. Laxman : AIR1979Kant93 has granted compensation to the claimants on the ground that there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of a goods vehicle in which the concerned persons were travelling with their goods on payment of hire charges.

2. The Insurance Company has challenged the awards of the Tribunal on the ground that the decisions of this Court do not speak with one voice on the liability to pay compensation in such cases and the matter therefore, requires a second look.

3. Shri Narayana, counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention has referred to us to the decisions of This Court, (1) Mohiddinsab v. V. R. H. Kindalkar (1973 (1) Mys LJ 393) and (2) Smt Radhabai Govindarao v. P. Krishnamurthy (ILR (1976) 1 Kant 133).

4. We have perused these two decisions. But we are unable to agree with the contention urged. The facts in Mohiddinsab's case do not lie in parallel with the facts in Channappa's case. : AIR1979Kant93 . The claimant therein was a gratuitous traveller and did not Pay any charge for the luggage entrusted to the goods vehicle. On that finding the owner himself was held not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the question of indemnifying the owner by the insurer did not arise at all.

5. In Radhabai's case (ILR (1976) 1 Kant 133) too, the facts were different, the deceased concerned was one Govindarao and no part of the goods transported in the lorry belonged to him.

6. In both the said cases, the Court quite naturally held that the owner of the goods could not be held to be a hirer and the Insurer of the vehicle was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. But the position in Channappa's case : AIR1979Kant93 is quite different. The person concerned was travelling in a goods vehicle along with his goods on payment of hire charges.

7. We do not therefore find any reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken by this Court in Channappa's case.

8. These appeals are rejected without notice to the respondents.

9. Appeals dismissed.


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