:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD FATED THIS THE 25: DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 BEFOR THE HON’BLE MR4UST1CE KG0VINDARAJULU MFA. No 8497/2007 WC] BETWEEN: The DvisionaI Manager. Tactinental insuronee Lu. Ltd. Bellaro. represented ho the Assa Manager. The Orentai insurance Co. Ltd.. Regional of ice. Leo Shopping Dolunlex, No.44/45. Residency tenad. Rim ainreal60 025. .APPE:LLANT (ha Sri (LN, Raichur, Arlene ate.) AND: I. Sri Parashuram,a Qij: Kandappa, S/n Eharagojiran. Mijor, R/o Ward No. 6, Near Ujjaini Sehool Bandimet, Bellarv 2. Sri Cal. Noor Eihasha, S / n eerkil liii V/ti’. or Cowl .dazarir. .deliarv - heid srtiTieient en P 1 end P2) - ‘‘ C ,& (I fvII,SiN ‘ ‘I I F ‘1 a JUDGMENT It pt t 1 ilL II I. C. (if SI ‘apyli 1 C 1 :3 ii )d1fl ha. ii j’i. e. ii attiC Uflu I • a Uttioti 1 . r ( (uflllHi%%iQfli,’t tt C, lit. lht I ( ) and I t1i o I pr 1 ‘c taiid taken in ‘a aan (nt.p.n” heiniz not done. ilit ippi’ah ni the Ctirninisiuner n not proper 2 Inspite ot “t.fl’tC ol notice t’fl the JuIniarlt%. the’ lrc ‘mained absen 1k. us sen ice to d&n z I ,Jd Suit ieicnt Per Ii d I ti ) dent t c mist t £ uintI i thep he pa%cen2ei% ‘ or the tssist.n drkei ol the narncI :he claimant. o puicltnc eet’ 1 r.’ -‘CC taU i hen he ‘.nt in the sue:! “tall naniel’ Oin S.t.et” “title !ctuininst. a In’ htelt.i had da’chicë jtta”it mm Sc.’ the taideni ‘ILI% rq’j©gj n• •h ‘.“t . iq’l.c.n:..ni. So cnn’pt.n’ an 11 1 p )‘i in ir ii a 1 iu Pt tn I I • U. pi’t’d i ‘a ‘ I.. ‘.‘! . . ..i. .••. — • .1. . ‘V 4’ I. t t a C SI I C. I P S t td Id ant .i If) ‘itnt sl I IS I xiii t,mnfi ci ) it icli ir ii ii i ,ti ( ii 1 h c. t t 1 Lid C. Ci ) I Ft d F :5: and 143 of the M.V. Act arc coming. This is a Chapter entirely devoted for the liability without fault in certain cases. So. this submission ofthe learned Advocate is rejected. 8. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on the ordcrs of this Court in M.l.A. No. 9338/02 wherein this Court has considered the use of the tractor and trailor. The facts placed before the Court is the auto ricksha driver at the instance of the owner of the auto. was driving the auto. So, the facts are distinguishable. 9. l.earncd Advocate also place reliance on the case of Munitaz Bi Bapusab Nadaf & On. Vs. United india Insurance Co. Ltd.. and others in Civil Appeal No. 7428.2010. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in this case were considering the liability in case of death that has has occurred while considering the principles under Section 147 of the M.V. Act.. that was a case of the use of the tractor and trailor. The tractor and trailor. and the auto cannot he two equal vehicle. So. this principle is not attracted. lie also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.. Vs. Siddaiah and another in MEi. No. 7818:02 and connected :6: cases. The subject placed beibre this Court in this case is the injured were the inmates of the lorry, the claimant contended that they were Coolies. The evidence was that they ‘ere marriage party. So. the principle in this ruling is not attracted. 10. In the facts of the case as narrated supra and found supra, the injured was the driver of the auto. It is not at all disputed that the owner of the vehicle-auto has admitted the employment. The next stage is it is the case of the claimant that while he was crossing the road, the accident has occurred. But in the evidence he has stated that he crossed the road to bring sweets. So. this assertion on oath, is not challenged. So, it is believed and the statement of the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company of the fabrication and false implication is rçjected. 11. The next ground urged by the learned Advocate is that the disability assessed at 2 O 0 ,o is on the higher side. [his subject is not a substantial question of law in an M.F.A. 12. [he next submission addressed is. in regard to interest. It is not the case of the complainant that heibre filing the claim 1% I • j S C. II, I j ‘ 1 it I %uut t hi ii