IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 01 day of December 2011 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HN.NAGAMOHAN DAS MFA No.21773/2011 c/w 21774/2011 & MFA.CROB.No.788/2011 MFA_No.21773/2011 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, 1-JUBLI. Appellant (By Sri, P,RBENTUR, Advocate) AND: 1, PREMA SUMANTH NAIIK A,’A 50 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE AND TAILOR. RIO G1DAMAVINAKATTA TQ SIRSI. DIST: UK. 2. ARAVINDA REDDY S/O GSUBBAREDDY, MAJOR. R/O SHIVAJI NAGAR. :2. HAVERI, (OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NOJ(A27/5768) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO], UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI IUFLOOR, ROSY TOWER, NUMGABAKKAM, CHENNAI (POLICY NO.411300/312006/8080 VALID BETWEEN/2508-2005 TO 24.08.2006) 4. SRI SHIVANANDA HANUMANTAPPA KARGAR, A/A 31 YEARS, AT NEGALOOR, TQ HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. .. .Respondents (By Sri LAXMAN B.MANNODDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R1 SERVED, R2 AND 4 NOTICE DISPENSED) MFA No.21774/2011 BETWEEN: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY .ITS CHIEF LkW OFFICER, HUBLI. Appellant (By Sri. P.R.BENTUR, Advocate) 3 AND: 1. ANNAPUMA W/O NAGARAJ NAIK A/A 26 YEARS. OCC:HOUSEHOLD R/O GIDAMAVINAKATTA TQ SIRSI, DIST: UK. 2. ARAVINDA REDDY 5/0 G.SUBBAREDDY, MAJOR, R/O SHIVAJI NAGAR, HAVERI, (OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NO.KA27/5768) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.7, UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI IUFLOOR, ROSY TOWER, NUMGABAKKAM, CHENNAI (POLICY NO.41 1300/312006/8080 VALID BETWEEN/25-08-2005 TO 24,08,2006) Respondents (By Sri LAXMAN B,MANNODDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI LAXMESH P,MUTAGUPP1 FOR Ri R2 NOTICE DISPENSED) MFACROBNo,788/2O1 1 PREMA SUMANTH NAIK A/A 51 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE AND TA]. LOR, RIO GIDAMA.VINAK,ATTA P0. YADALLI, SIRSI TALUK DIST: UK 581340 CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI LAXMESH RMUTAGUPPI, ADV) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR N.WKRTC. HUBLI BUS NOKA27-5768 GOKUL ROAD, HUBLL21 2. ARAVINDA REDDY S/O GSUBBAREDDY, MAJOR, RIO SHIVAJI NAGAR, HAVERI, (OWNER OF THE BUS BEARING NOJ(A-27/5768) 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO], UTHAMAR GANDHI SALAI IUFLOOR, ROSY TOWER, NUMGABAKKAM, CHENNAI (POLICY NO41 1300/312006/8080 VALID BETWEEN/25-082005 TO 2408]006) RESPONDENTS These appeals and cross objections are filed against the judgment and award datedl2JL2OlO passed in MVC No94/2007 and 96/2007 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, :5: These appeals along with cross objections coming on for hearing this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT These two appeals arise out of the common judgment in MVC No.94/2007 and 96/2007 dated 12.11 .2010 passed by the Fast Track Court at Sirsi. The cross objections arise out MVC No.94/2007. 2. The second respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the same was insured with respondent insurance company. The second respondent had given the vehicle in question on hire basis to the appellant. When the bus in question was under the control of the appellant. the same met with an accident resulting in injuries to two persons. On contest the Tribunal passed the impugned award fastening the liability on the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though they had taken the bus on hire basis, the policy issued by the respondent no.3 was in force and they are 4 :6: liable to answer the claimants. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kulsum in Civil Appeal No.5901/2011 disposed on 25/7/2011. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.3 supports the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and contends that they are not liable for answering the dalin. 4. The Supreme Court in U.P.State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kulsum in Civil Appeal No.5901/2011 disposed on 25/7/2011 held that even after hiring the vehicle when the policy was in operation, then hirer is not responsible and the insurance company is liable to answer the claim. In view of this dictum of the Apex court, the reasoning of the Tribunal is bad in law. Therefore, the award to ‘this extent is liable to be modified fastening the liability on respondent insurance company. :7: 5. In the cross objections. the claimant contends that he has suffered injury to the spinal cord as per Ex.P5 to P7, he had taken treatment in three hospitals at Sirsi, Shimoga and Bangalore. Unfortunately. the claimant has not .examined the Doctor. The Tribunal had only granted global compensation of Rs.l0,000/-. Even on the basis of the wound certificate, X-ray and oral evidence of the claimant, a lumpsum of Rs.25,000/- is to be awarded. To this extent the impugned award requires modification. For the reasons stated above, the following: ORDER i) Appeals and cross-objection are partly allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and award in M.V.C.No.94 and 96/2007 dated 12.11.2010 is hereby modified fastening the liability on Respondent No.3 insurance company instead of appellant. yr iii) The impugned Judgment and Award in so far as MYC No.94/2007 dated 12.11.2010 is hereby modified enhancing the total compensation Corn Rs10000- to Rs.25000’-. iv) The deposit made by the appellant is orderod to he refunded to them. Sd! JUDGE Dkb