Boy leg was amputated - Tribunal awarded Rs.3,45,000/- against the appellants that is KSRTC and Insurance Company - Hired Bus - liability in the case of a hired bus.= But the issue with regard to hired bus is now authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, KSRTC v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1] holding that all are jointly and severally liable to the claim; but however, the Road Transport Corporation, in terms of the lease agreement entered into with the registered owner, would be entitled to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner as stipulated in the agreement or from the insurer. = In view of the decision in Managing Director, KSRTC’s case (supra), the award passed by the Tribunal has to be upheld. However, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation can recover the amount from the owner as stipulated in the agreement or from the insurer.


MACMA 418 / 2016
MACMASR 39825 / 2008CASE IS:DISPOSED
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
THE NORTH WEST KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION  VSS.MASTHAN VALI & 2 ORS





DISPOSED ON  11-02-2016 DISMISSED NO COSTS


STATUS   :  ---------



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
MACMA.Nos.417 and 418 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as they arise out of award dated 05.03.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool (for short, the Tribunal).
2. MACMA.No.417 of 2016 was filed by Oriental Insurance Company, whereas MACMA.No.418 of 2016 was filed by North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. Both the appeals raise a common point with regard to their liability in the case of a hired bus. But the issue with regard to hired bus is now authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in Managing Director, KSRTC v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [1] holding that all are jointly and severally liable to the claim; but however, the Road Transport Corporation, in terms of the lease agreement entered into with the registered owner, would be entitled to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner as stipulated in the agreement or from the insurer. 
3. The claimant filed MVOP.No.463 of 2006 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 01.04.2006. The claimant was aged about 7 years as on the date of accident and was studying second class. In the accident, his left leg was amputated. 
4. The owner of the bus, which was involved in the accident remained ex parte and the case was contested by the appellants herein. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- towards compensation, by its award dated 05.03.2008, against the appellants. 
5. The present appeals are preferred by Oriental Insurance Company and North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation as stated above. In view of the decision in Managing Director, KSRTC’s case (supra), the award passed by the Tribunal has to be upheld. However, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation can recover the amount from the owner as stipulated in the agreement or from the insurer. 
6. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 11.02.2016 TJMR [1] 2015 (6) ALD 166 (SC)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515