CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 07 KAR CK 0149

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs Sri Y.K. Shashidhara @ Shashidhar and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 22 July 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subhash B.Adi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 297 of 2011 (MV)
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 400 words

Subhash B.Adi

1.

Respondent No. 3 is New India Insurance Co., for which, Sri. D.S. Sridhar has already appeared.

2.

This appeal is filed by the BMTC against the judgment and award dated 4.8.2010 in MVC No. 4461/2007 on the file of the MACT, Bangalore questioning the liability..

3.

On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,36,000/-with interest and has directed the BMTC to pay the compensation on the ground that the bus was in its control and possession on the date of the accident.

4.

It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was the owner of the vehicle and that the respondent No. 3 is the insurer and the policy was valid as on the date of the accident. It is also not in dispute that the driver of the bus was employed by respondent No. 2. A Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances in MFA No. 8531/2007, has taken a view that in case of hire agreement between the owner and the BMTC, the liability of the owner and the insurer will not get absolved and the findings of the said judgment is as under:

...Even if the awards are satisfied by the Corporation, the owner has to indemnify the Corporation. Neither the Insurance Company nor the third parties, namely the claimants are parties to this agreement. The liability to compensate the third parties is a statutory liability and not a contractual liability any more. In fact the agreement entered in to between the owner and the Corporation recognizes this legal position, and incorporates a clause to that effect in the agreement. Even otherwise, if any agreement contrary to this statutory liability is incorporated, it would be opposed to law and void ab-initio and unenforceable. It would be also opposed to the public policy. Therefore, the liability of the owner, as well as the Insurance Company subsisted on the date of the accident. Hence, the Registered Owner and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation and satisfy the award.

5.

In view of the same and in view of subsequent judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court, appeal is liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified The owner and insurer are liable to pay the compensation. Amount in deposit be refunded to the appellant.