Back
1997 Supreme(Kar) 733
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
M.F. Saldanha, J.
United India Insurance Company Ltd. —Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Paraveen and others —Respondent
Decided on : 08-07-1997
The court upheld the principle that a person not covered as a crew member under an insurance policy may still be entitled to compensation as a passenger under the policy's coverage limit.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Insurance Policy Coverage - The court technically condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed it to be considered on merits. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the deceased, not covered as a crew member, was entitled to compensation as a passenger under the policy covering six persons.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants argued procedural delays in filing the appeal, contending that the Insurance Company could not be disqualified from agitating the matter on merits. The deceased, a cleaner of the vehicle, was not covered as a crew member under the policy, but the Tribunal limited the compensation to six persons covered by the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court technically condoned the delay, allowed the appeal to be considered on merits, and upheld the Tribunal's decision that the deceased was entitled to compensation as a passenger under the policy covering six persons.
Issues: Procedural delays in filing the appeal, coverage of the deceased under the insurance policy, and the Tribunal's reasoning for limiting the compensation to six persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the deceased, not covered as a crew member, was entitled to compensation as a passenger under the policy covering six persons.
Final Decision: The appeal failed and was disposed of, with the amount deposited in the Court to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursal in accordance with the order. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the balance amount in the Tribunal within 12 weeks.
M.F. Saldanha, J.—The R-5 is a driver who is nothing more than a formal party. The appeal to stand dismissed as against him.
2. The appellants' learned Advocate has submitted that there were some procedural delays as a result of which the appeal came to be filed late and it is his contention that the Insurance Company could not be disqualified from agitating the matter on merits. Unlike in the case of individuals where there may be handicaps and hardships, the same standard cannot be applied to Companies, Corporations and Banks particularly in situations where delay was occurred. Though this Court would have been justified in dismissing I.A. I, I have preferred to technically condone the delay, allow I.A. I and consider the case on merits.
3. I have heard the two learned Advocates. The appellants' learned Advocate submitted that the basic error in the order of the Tribunal stems from the fact that the deceased respondent who was the cleaner of the vehicle in question or rather was taking care of it is not covered as a crew member because the policy does not make any such provision. Learned Advocate drew my attention to the terms of the policy and to this extent, he is right in his submission. However, it is necessary to consider the reasoning of the Tribunal in this regard and the respondents' learned Advocate points out to me that the Tribunal has limited the compensation granted to six persons as the policy covers only six persons. Even though more M.V.Cs. had been filed, some of them were not pressed and the Tribunal has passed orders for compensation only in six cases. The submission is that the Tribunal has equated the deceased taking him to be one of the passengers on the ground that if he is not covered as a crew member, that he does not cease to be an occupant of the vehicle and that he is consequently entitled to compensation in the capacity of a passenger.
4. It would be difficult to dispute the reasoning of the Tribunal in this regard because the policy does cover six persons and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased came within the protected number and that it makes no difference whether he was travelling as a passenger or in some other capacity.
5. Having regard to this situation, to my mind, no interference is called for with the order in question. The appeal accordingly fails and stands disposed of. The amount deposited in this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursal in keeping with the terms of the order. The balance amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company in the Tribunal within an outer limit of 12 weeks. I.A. I is allowed. I.A. II is disposed of.
