1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF APRIL 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.S.INDRAKALA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7077 OF 2009 (MV) BETWEEN: BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. DHARMASTALA BUILDING MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE SUBHARAM COMPLEX 144, M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 … APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.K.SATISH NAIK S/O KEPU NAIK NOW AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O SHEDIGURI HOUSE KOLTHIGE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. 2. SHRIDHAR RAI S/O LATE SANKAPPA RAI NOW AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS PERLAMPAY PADE HOUSE KOLTHIGE VILLAGE PUTTUR TQ., D.K. 2 3. GIRISH KUMAR RAI SHRIDHAR RAI NOW AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS PERLAMPAY PADE HOUSE KOLTHIGE VILLAGE PUTTUR TQ., D.K. … RESPONDENTS (SRI. S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 APPEAL ABATED AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 RESPONDENT NO.3 - SERVED) ***** THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD 20.4.2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.1176/2004 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.9,500/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT The appellant – insurer has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.4.2009 passed in MVC No.1176/2004 on the file of Additional MACT, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. 2. The brief facts of the case is that on 12.7.2002, while the claimant was travelling in the jeep bearing 3 registration No.KA 20 M 283 from Perlampady towards Karnoor and when the said jeep was proceeding near Bedrady of Nettanige Mudnoor Village, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in rash manner and lost control of the vehicle, consequent of which the vehicle fell to a road side stream and the accident occurred. Further, it is contended by the claimant that in the said accident, he suffered injuries as stated in column 11 of the claim petition, took treatment at Adarsha Hospital from 12.7.2002 to 17.7.2002 and spent about Rs.5,000/- for treatment, etc. In the circumstances, he filed claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 3. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal deemed it fit to award a sum of Rs.9,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent – insurer filed the above appeal contending 4 amongst other contentions that the policy issued was only an Act policy and did not cover the risk of inmates of the vehicle involved in the accident. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent – claimant submitted that as no policy was filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not in a position to know whether the policy is Act policy or a package policy and in the circumstances, the finding given by the Tribunal fixing the liability both on the owner as well on the insurer, is just and proper and the same does not call for interference. 6. Admittedly, the amount awarded is Rs.9,500/-. Under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 if the amount in dispute is less then Rs.10,000/-, the award is not appealable. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the amount in dispute as mentioned in sub-clause (2) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, includes the interest also as he is questioning the entire liability, further he submitted 5 the said amount of Rs.9,500/- together with interest from the date of petition till the date of passing of the award exceeds Rs.10,000/-. In the circumstances, the appeal is maintainable. 7. On a reading of Section 173(2) it is clear that no appeal shall lie against any award of claims tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000/-. In the circumstances, as the amount in dispute includes not only the principal award but also the interest thereon the same exceeds Rs.10,000/- as contended by the appellant and hence the appeal is maintainable. 8. However, during the course of the proceedings, the owner – respondent No.2 expired and as no steps were taken to bring his legal representatives on record, the appeal was held to be abated against respondent No.2 by order dated 14.3.2012. In the circumstances, as the lis in this appeal is only between the insurer and the insured, the appeal against insured is abated. The 6 above appeal has itself become infructuous. Accordingly, the above appeal is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement. Sd/- JUDGE AHB .