Skip to content


United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. U.E. Prasad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Insurance
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. First Appeal No. 437 of 1982
Judge
Reported inI(1985)ACC250; [1986]60CompCas700a(Kar)
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 2(15), 95 and 110B
AppellantUnited India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentU.E. Prasad and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR. Narayana, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.K. Laxman, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....in the original file, it can be seen that for the agricultural years 1963-64 to 2003-04 the names of petitioners are entered in column no.12(2) and the mode of cultivation is shown as 3 which indicates that the petitioners are cultivating the land in question as tenants. impugned orders are unsustainable in the eye of law and the same are liable to be set aside...........and several liability, which in our opinion, is just and proper.3. the auto could be described as motor cab. a motor cab is defined under s. 2(15) of the motor vehicles act. it states:'motor cab means any motor vehicle constructed at any time or used to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.'as such the autorickshaw falls within the category of motor cab vide summitra autorickshaw sahakari sangh ltd. v. director of transport at bombay, : air1967bom402 and therefore the liability of the insurance company in the case of a passenger in the motor cab would extend to rs. 10,000. that being so, the liability awarded in this case is within the liability of the insurance company.4. in the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed......
Judgment:

Sabhahit, J.

1. This appeal by the Insurer of the Auto is directed against the judgment and award dated First day of June 1978 made by the Claims Tribunal Bangalore City in M.C. No. 67/75 on its file awarding compensation of Rs. 8684/- from respondents 1 and 3 to 6 in the petition along with interest and costs.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the Tribunal held that both the drivers of the Auto and car were responsible for causing the accident, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability between the two vehicles. He contended that the Insurance Company of the Auto could not be made liable to pay the entire compensation jointly and severally along with the other respondents. This submission was repealed by the learned Counsel appearing for the claimant. He submitted that the accident was the result of composite negligence and not contributory negligence. The person who was injured was a passenger in the Auto. The evidence of the petitioner shows that both the vehicles were being driven at a very fast speed and that is the cause of the accident. That being so, it is true that the accident was the result of composite negligence of both the drivers of the Auto and of the Car. In the case of composite negligence the claimant can proceed against any joint tort - feasor or against all of them as they are jointly and severally liable. The Tribunal has given joint and several liability, which in our opinion, is just and proper.

3. The Auto could be described as Motor cab. A Motor cab is defined under S. 2(15) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It states:

'Motor cab means any Motor vehicle constructed at any time or used to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.'

As such the Autorickshaw falls within the category of Motor cab Vide Summitra Autorickshaw Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Director of Transport at Bombay, : AIR1967Bom402 and therefore the liability of the Insurance Company in the case of a passenger in the Motor cab would extend to Rs. 10,000. That being so, the liability awarded in this case is within the liability of the Insurance Company.

4. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed. The Insurer however, is at liberty to take action for recovering the contribution from the other respondents who are made liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

5. Appeal dismissed.


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