- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15110 MFA No. 7552 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7552 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI HANUMAMMA W/O CHOWDEGOWDA, MAJOR, THALAGAVADI VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571408. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAMOD R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARA S/O CHALUVEGOWDA, AGE 32 YEARS, R/O MANIGERE VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571408. 2. THE MANAGER (LEGAL) IFFCO TOKIO, GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NO.41, 2ND FLOOR, CRISTU, COMPLEX, LEVELLE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURALIDHAR NEGAVAR, ADV. FOR R2, R1 - KUMARA - SERVED.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 6.3.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.114/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,48,200/- WITH INTEREST @ 7% P.A ON 2,40,200/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15110 MFA No. 7552 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT The owner of the vehicle being aggrieved by the order passed in MVC No.114/2014 dated 06.03.2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Maddur, is before this Court. 2. The owner of the vehicle is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that he is liable to pay the compensation. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 25.07.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., the claimant was in the process of loading the wooden logs to the trailer at Manigere village, at that time, the driver of the tractor and trailer all of a sudden moved the tractor in a rash and negligent manner due to which the claimant lost control the balance and fell down from the trailer. Then the wheels of the trailer ran over his left leg and as a result, he sustained grievous - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15110 MFA No. 7552 of 2016 injuries. The Tribunal had granted the compensation. The Tribunal has held that the insurance company is liable to basically discharge the liability of the owner by paying compensation and thereafter the company can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. While giving such finding the Tribunal had observed that the driver of the tractor is not authorized to drive the tractor and trailer. Further, the policy is given for the agriculture purpose and the same is used for non-agriculture purpose to transport the wooden logs. 4. It is the case of the insurance company that the claimant is an authorized passenger and sitting on the wooden logs in the trailer. The Tribunal has observed that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and the owner alone is liable to pay compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for owner of the vehicle submits that the tractor is used for agriculture purpose i.e. for constructing the farm house and it cannot be termed as non-agriculture purpose and further submitted that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15110 MFA No. 7552 of 2016 loader and un loader cannot be termed as gratuitous passengers. Further, that Light Motor Vehicle transport and non-transport also cannot be ground for the Tribunal to fasten liability on the owner of the vehicle in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED1 and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation but not the owner of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that all the arguments put forth before this Court was never the case of the owner of the vehicle and he did not place any material to prove that the vehicle is used for agriculture purpose. He further submits that even assuming that the purpose as stated by him, it cannot be stated that vehicle is used for agriculture purpose and there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 1 reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15110 MFA No. 7552 of 2016 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 8. The vehicle is insured for the agriculture purpose and it is an admitted fact that the vehicle is used for carrying wooden logs for the construction of farm house. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that construction of farm house is agriculture purpose and the Tribunal had failed to appreciate the case of the owner of the vehicle and according to the insurance company, the owner of the vehicle has not put forth any material before the Court. This Court is not able to appreciate the contention of the owner of the vehicle that the construction of farm house can be termed as agriculture purpose and there is no violation of terms and conditions of policy. In the considered opinion of this Court, the construction of farm house does not amount to agriculture purpose and the Tribunal has rightly held that there is violation of terms - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15110 MFA No. 7552 of 2016 and conditions of policy and the owner of the vehicle alone has to pay the compensation. 9. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The amount in deposit is transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. 3. All IAs., in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16