- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8090 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI.M. VENKATAREDDY S/O RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT VEMILETI KOTA VILLAGE, B.KOTHA KOTA MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. …APPELLANT (BY SMT SUSHMITHA GOPALKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.SEETHAKA OBULAPATHI S/O CHINNA VENKATAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, RESIDING AT 1-46-1, KAYALAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, RANGASAMUDRAM POST, PEDDATHIPPASAMUDRAM, MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517 391. 2. M/S. IFFCO-TOKIYO GENERAL INSRUANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, LAVELLA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP: BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2018, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT. SRI.C.SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.8683/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.04.2013 passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT-3, Bengaluru (SCCH-3) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), in MVC No.8683/2010. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 09.07.2010, the claimant was going towards Chintamani from his native village by travelling in a goods tempo bearing No.AP-03-TA- 0278 along with silk cocoon bags, to sell the same to the silk cocoon market at Chintamani, along with other co-owners of the goods at Kondamarri cross. The driver of the said goods - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a roadside tree. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He took treatment at R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Bengaluru, as an inpatient and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was aged about 50 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he suffered permanent disability, this has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending goods vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2/insurer filed a written statement contending that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. Hence, respondent No.2 not liable to pay compensation. With these reasons, he states that the claimant was not covered under the policy of the insurance and he denied other averments stated in the petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 5. Tribunal framed the necessary issues on the basis of rival contentions of the parties. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined one witness as PW-1 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.21. Respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW-1 and marked one document as Ex.R.1. 7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle by its driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,91,200/- and exonerated the liability of respondent No.2/insurer on the ground that claimant was a gratuitous passenger, and the same is challenged in the present appeal by the claimant. On the ground that exoneration of the respondent No.2 is improper and incorrect. 8. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the claimant was transporting silk cocoon bags - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 from his village to the silk cocoon market at Chintamani. In the said goods tempo, he was not a gratuitous passenger but was travelling as owner of the goods and that his risk was covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant also produced receipts of selling cocoon bags in the market at Exs.P.14 to P.17. These documents were not at all considered by the Tribunal and it merely believed the contentions of respondent No.2 and held that he was a gratuitous passenger. The said finding is erroneous. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that there is no iota of materials in the charge sheet enclosed to show that the claimant was transporting goods in the said vehicle. Spot mahazar does not disclose any cocoon bags were found in the carrier of the goods vehicle or any such bags near the spot of incident. The incident took place on 09.07.2010 and on the same day, in the evening, a complaint was lodged. The claimant was not examined by the investigating officer to prove that there were any cocoon bags in the said vehicle. Therefore, the self-service statement of PW-1 is not corroborated by any other witnesses. The Tribunal rightly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 considered the said evidence and held that the owner of the vehicle is liable for payment of the compensation and the said finding does not call for any interference by this Court. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal against respondent No.2. 11. I have anxiously gone through the records produced by the parties before the Tribunal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar is silent regarding cocoon bags in the carrier of said goods tempo. The Tribunal's case records reveal that there were 7 persons in the said goods tempo. According to the claimant, all of them were co-owners of the cocoon bags. There is no reference as to what was the quantity of the cocoon bags they were travelling in the said goods tempo or how much they agreed to pay as freight charges to transporters. Even though the owner of the goods tempo was not examined to prove the said particulars. In the absence of relevant materials, it is difficult to accept the contentions of the claimant that at the time of accident, he was transporting the goods along with the said goods, in the offending vehicle. Exs.P.14 to 17 are the receipts of the cocoon markets. Even if they do not contain the name of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 claimant. There are reasons pertinent subsequent years, that is of the year 2011. The incident took place on 09.07.2010. Therefore, the said receipts will not help the claimant to prove that on the date of accident, he was transporting the goods in the said vehicle. 12. The Tribunal in paragraph No.9 discussed the facts in detail. It rightly exonerated the insurer from payment of compensation or indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. I don’t find any reasons to interfere in the said findings. 13. Considering the contentions of the parties, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. Impugned Judgment and award dated 04.04.2013 passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge, Member, MACT-3, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24079 MFA No. 8090 of 2014 Bengaluru (SCCH-3), in MVC No.8683/2010, is confirmed. iii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to the trial Court. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12.