.1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 3O” day of November 2011 Before THE HON’BLE MR..JUSTICE H..N.NAGAMOHAN DAS Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22348/2010 (MV) BETWEEN: The Managing Director, NWKRTC. its branch office, Magavi Chamber, Haven. The appellant is represented by Its Chief Law Officer. Central Office, Hubli. . . .Appellant (By Sri. Shivakumar S.Badawadagi, Advocate) AND: 1. Basavaraj, Sb Fakkirappa Haven, Aged about 21 years, 0cc: Student. Rio Mulathalli. Tq: Hangal. Dist: Haven. 2. Prabhakar Prabhu. Sb Venkataramana, Prabhu Bhavadeep, owner of Bus, Aged about 40 years, 0cc: Business. R/o Gandhi Maidan. Kundapur, Dist: Udupi. 3. The Managing Director. United India Insurance Co.. Ltd., Branch Office, Opposite .2. Bus Stand, Muktali Building, Haved. .. .Respondents (By Sri. Laxman B.Mannoddar, Advocate for R3) (RI - notice dispensed; R2 - served) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 25.02.2010 passed in MVC No.157/2009 on the file of the District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track at Haven, awarding the éompensation of 85.000I- with interest at thW rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realisation. This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25” February 2010 in M.V.C. No.157/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Haveri. 2. The vehicle involved in the accident belongs to the second respondent and insured with the respondent No.3. The owner of the vehicle that is respondent no.2 has given the vehicle on hire basis to the appellant. When the bus was under the control of appellant the accident had taken place. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 3 1 arnad nunsl fnv tht appalint ontaqis that n identical nrrurnqtar. es Pic S!lprrnc caurt .‘ iJtr.i A 1 JL s’• Road Trar,sj ort Corporation .s KuIw ii n C ivil \j peal No 59W 2W 1 •l’sposco cr’ eb ‘ 2011 he’d tna’ the i’Isuiar’ce company is liable to pay thc ompensation 4 In view of the law declared by the Apex Couit even after leasing of the vehicle by the owner the liability of the insurance.. company continues Therefore. in the present case the third respondent is liable to pay the compensation Accordingly thc following ORDER I, Appeal is herecy aliowed IF T[ judgrn’r ani 3w- d ed nassel n P\lfl J 1 . ‘fl 1%. r ‘fl.J ,ir’! J.rectiri3 thp tI rc SI.a9C’L I diit C. r ) ‘r ‘€. T V.