IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2011

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH

M.F.A No.30542/2009

BETWEEN:

$\mathcal{L}$

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{L}}$

BRANCH MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LATERAL SPREAD CENTRE 102, I FLOOR, RAGHAVA KRISHNA COMPLEX, K.C.ROAD, BELLARY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ZONAL MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BANGALORE ZONAL OFFICE SOUTH. KSCMF BUILDING, III FLOOR III BLOCK, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE - 560 052

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE & SRI A.N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

$AND:$

• 1. FAKEERAPPA S/O BHEEMAYYA NOW AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HANCHINAL VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR
• 2. BHEEMAYYA S/O HUSSAINAPPA NOW AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS OCC: OWNER CUM DRIVER OF AUTO R/O YERAGERA VILLAGE TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR

... RESPONDENTS

$(R2 - SERVED)$

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 20.01.2009 PASSED IN MVC.NO.300/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT & PRESIDING OFFICER, FTC-IV, RAICHUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION OF RS.74,263/- WITH FUTURE IN TEREST AT 5% FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):

Heard. This appeal by the IFFCO TOKO General Insurance Company Limited is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Fast Track Court-IV, Raichur, in MVC.No.300/2008. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of ₹74,263/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit, to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident. that occurred on $25.10.2007$ .

$-3 -$

$\mathcal{A}^{\mathcal{A}}$

$2.$ The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company $is$ that the insured vehicle namely, the Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-36/7028 was plied beyond the municipal limits which is contrary to the Transport permit and hence the Tribunal ought to have absolved the appellant-Insurer of the liability to satisfy the award.

3. As could be seen from the impugned judgment, this contention was not even urged before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, no certified copy of the permit was produced; only a photocopy of it was produced. Assuming that the permit had stipulated plying of the vehicle within a certain Territorial limit. mere taking the vehicle outside the limit, in $my$ opinion, cannot amount to using the vehicle for $a$ purpose not allowed by the permit. I find no substance in the contention urged. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

My

The amount lying in deposit, if any, with this $4.$ Court shall be transferred to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

Appeal dismissed.

$LG/ata$

$\frac{1}{2}$

$\overline{3}$