Branch Manager, Branch Officer, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Revanasiddappa and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100: [n. kumar, j] decree in suit for declaration of title states appeal against it delay of 9 years and 7 months lower appellate court refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal second appeal held, state which represent the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant. refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out, at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. the technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations which would promote public interest and substantial justice. when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. delay was condoned. order of lower appellate court was set aside. matter remitted to lower appellate court for disposal of appeal on merits. section 5; condonation of delay - decree in suit for declaration of title states appeal against it delay of 9 years and 7 months lower appellate court refusing to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal second appeal held, state which represent the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant. refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out, at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. the technicalities of procedure should yield to considerations which would promote public interest and substantial justice. when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a case would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. delay was condoned. order of lower appellate court was set aside. matter remitted to lower appellate court for disposal of appeal on merits. n. ananda, j.1. these appeals have arisen out of common judgment made in mvc nos. 153, 151, 152, 154, 155 and 150 of 2005, on the file of i additional civil judge (senior division) and additional motor accident claims tribunal at chitradurga.2. i have heard sri a.k. bhat, learned counsel for insurance company.3. the learned counsel for insurance company would submit that vehicle involved in the accident i.e., jeep bearing no. meg 3073 was insured with insurance company under an act policy. therefore, the policy did not cover the risk of occupants of jeep. the tribunal has accepted the case of insurance company and ordered the insurance company to pay compensation to claimants and recover the same from the insured. the jeep was insured under 'liability only policy'. the insured had paid basic premium of rs. 700/- to cover the risk of owner-cum-driver upto rs. 2,00,000/- and risk of one employee, in terms of workmen's compensation act, 1923. the policy did not cover the risk of occupants.4. this court in a decision in the case of geetha v. subrahmanya (since deceased) by l.rs. and anr. : ilr 2008 karn 4112, has held that insurance company has no liability towards death or bodily injury to any person other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. this court has relied on the judgment of the supreme court in the case of united india insurance co. limited, shimla v. tilak singh and ors. : air 2006 sc 1576 : (2006) 4 scc 404 : 2006 air scw 1822.5. the tribunal has recorded a finding that insurance company has issued act policy and it did not cover the risk of occupants of jeep. therefore, i pass the following:orderthe appeal is accepted in part. the impugned award is modified. compensation awarded by tribunal shall be paid by sri revanasiddappa/owner of vehicle, who is the i respondent before tribunal. the claim petitions against the appellant/insurance company, arrayed as ii respondent before tribunal are dismissed. the amount deposited by insurance company shall be refunded to insurance company. parties are directed to bear their costs.