SAMPIGEHATTY ESTATE (P) LTD Vs. MARIYADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the proceedings in Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.51 to 53/2013 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chikkamagalur (For short, 'learned Civil Court').

(2.) These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions in Nos.51 to 53/2013 are filed by the owner of a Mahindra Goods Pick up Van, bearing registration No.KA-03/AA-0379 (offending vehicle) - the common respondent in the Motor Vehicle Claim Petitions in MVC Nos.539/2012 and MVC No.541/2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagalur. The claim petitions in MVC Nos.539/2012 and 541/2012 are filed by the injured in a road accident on 9.1.2012 involving the offending vehicle. These claim petitions in MVC Nos.539/2012 and MVC No.541/2012 (along with another claim petition in MVC No.537/2012) are allowed by the common judgment and award dated 28.9.2013 awarding compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- and Rs.1,44,000/- to the claimants respectively. Insofar as the liability, the Insurance company is exonerated and the owner of the offending vehicle is directed to pay the compensation along with interest. The owner of the offending vehicle though entered appearance did not contest the claim petition and therefore, he has filed the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petitions under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The appeals in MFA No.2296/2016 and MFA No.2297/2016 are filed by the owner of the offending vehicle and the appeals in MFA No.9085/2015 and MFA No.9086/2015 are filed by the claimants in the respective claim petitions in MVC No.539/2012 and MVC No.541/2012. The common ground, amongst others, in MFA No.2296/2016 and MFA No.2297/2016 filed by the owner of the offending vehicle is that the Insurance Company is exonerated on the ground that the claimants were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers while it is indisputable that the claimant in MVC No.539/2012 was a pedestrian and the claimant in MVC No.541/2012 was travelling in the offending vehicle along with his goods viz., mangoes. As such neither could be called gratuitous passenger. Further, insofar as his nonparticipation in the proceedings before the learned MACT, it is contended that the Insurance company assured him that, in view of the extant policy, the Insurance Company would settle the claims and as such, he would not be subjected to answer the claim petitions. The owner of the offending vehicle did not participate in the proceedings only for that reason. It was only after the claim petitions were allowed by the learned MACT that the owner of the offending vehicle realized that the Insurance Company had failed to protect his interest.