IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 201 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRiLFSTICE KGOVINDARAJULL MFA.NO 6639 OF 2007 (MV) C/W MFANO6644 OF 2007 (MVI IN MFA No.6639/2007 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, CTS NO3217 BUS STAND ROAD, GOKAK, DIST BELGAUM NOW REPTD BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX, 144, MG ROAD BANGALORE0 I APPELLANT (BY SRLSJCKAYAKMATF.i., ANKRISHNASWAMY, ADVS.,) AND: 1. DASTAGEERSAB GAJABARSAB SOUDAGAR NOW AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC:VEGETABLE VENDOR R/O SHINDIKURBET TQ GOKAK 2. RAPIQAHAIVIMAD GAJABARSABSOUDAGAR AGE rvIAJOR ‘TT EQ GHATAPRABHA TQ GOKAK RESPONDENTS (BY SRLJAG.A.DEESH PATIL FOR C/Ri) (R2 SERVED) MFA FILED U/SJ73(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8/1/2007 PASSED IN MVC NC. 308/03 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SD) & MACT, GOKAK, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,15,000/ - WITH INTEREST . 6% PA. ON RS.1,07,000/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. 6644 2007 BETWEEN: THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE, CTS NO3217 BUS STAND ROAD, GOKAK, DIST BELGAUM NOW REPTD BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX. 1.44, MG ROAD BANGALORE-0 1 APPELLANT (BY SRLSJC KAYAKMATH, A. NKR1SHNASWAMY, ELPRADEEP, SMAHESHWARA, ADVS,) AND: 1. SMT MAREMBI Wi C) 1 IAMSAB SOUDAGAR NOW AGED ABOUT 44YEARS OCC:VEGETABLE VENOR R/O SHINDIKURBET TO GOKAK 2. RAFIQAHAMMAD GAJABARSABSOUDAGAR AGE MAJOR 0CC: BUSINESS R/ C) GHATAPRABHA TQ GOKAK RESPONDENTS (BY SRIJAGADEESH PATIL FOR C/Ri) (BY SRLBSHARANA BASAVA FOR R2) MFA FILED U/Si73(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8,/1/2007 PASSED IN MVC NO3O9/03 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SD) & MACT, GOKAK, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS,54,300/ WITH INTEREST 6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR HEARING HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGEMENT The Respondent No.2 in MVC 308/2003 on the file of MACT, Gokak is the appellant. 2. The case of the claimant is that he a]ongiwth the claimant jn 309/2003 were moving in Tata 407 goods vehicle bearing registration NoJ<A23/ 7515 alongwith the vegetable bags i..hjm Ghataprabha to -i:ken t se earvwes e’ n f 4 vehicle driven it rashly, negligently, it resulted injuries. So seek for compensation. 3. Tribunal has received objections by the Insurance Company, the defence of the Insurance Company is that the petitioner was a passenger in a goods vehicle, it is rejected by the learned Member of the Tribunal and fixed the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.115,000/-. 4. The learned Advocate for the Insurance Company contends that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Member of the Tribunal that the petitioner was moving alongwith the vegetables is an improper reading of the evidence, evidence probabalise that the petitioner was a passenger in a goods vehicle. So the Insurance Company should be absolved from paying the compensation. 5. Subject urged before the Court is a question of fact. The reasoning of the learned Member of the Tribunal on the subject of claimant moving alongwith the vegetables reads as follows: The respondent 2 has failed to prove the second condition that petitioners were travelling as passengers in goods vehicle. The respondent 2 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove such contention and to establish that owner has committed breach ofpolicy conditions, On the other hand the Ex.P1 which is FIR with complaint clearly speak that on the date of the accident both the petitioners alongwith one Shabbir Soudagar were loaded their bundles and bags of vegetables in the offended vehicle from Ghataprabha and they were travelling in the said vehicle alongwith their goods to go to Harugeri to attend the sandy day and to sell the vegetables. The FIR is the first information which is filed hnmediately after the accideat before police. There s nothirtq to discard and d!sbe/i000 the coritentiorzs of FIR coupled tuil.}i oral evidence of PW1 and 2. As such, it is clear that the petitioners were travelling in the offended vehicle alonqwith their goods and they are vegetable vendors by profession. 6. The advocate for the Insurance Company has not placed any material to form a different opinion or to accept his submission of the petitioner moving without goods in the goods lorry, So the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company is rejected. The appeal is dismissed. Amount in deposit be transferred to the Tribunal for payment. ]IJDGE