- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100598 OF 2015 (MV-) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKARA ROAD, BELAGAVI, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M Y KATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ABDULSAB HASANSAB GARAGAD AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK and COOLIE, R/O: DODWAD, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. BHAVKANNA LAXMAN SULEBHAVI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: BASARIKATTI TQ and DIST: BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF TRACTGOR-TRAILER BEARING REG. NO. KA-22/T-1618-1619) 3. SHRI. MAHADEV S/O. GOPAL KALANKAR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. 1ST LANE, SHIVAJI NAGAR, DIST: BELAGAVI (OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 REG. NO.KA-22/A-1403) 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD., CHAMPA BUILDING, KHADE BAZAR, DIST: BELAGAVI, (INSURER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG. NO. KA-22/A-1403) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV. FOR R4; R2-SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2014 PASSED BY IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL, AT: BAILHONGAL IN MVC NO.1598/2005 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 14.11.2014 passed in MVC No.1598/2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. On 04.02.2005, the petitioner and his relatives were proceeding in an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA- 22/1403. The driver of the auto-rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed. When the auto-rickshaw came near the old Gandhi Nagar Cross, the driver of the auto-rickshaw was overtaking the tractor- trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-22/T-1618-1619, at that time, the driver of the tractor-trailer immediately took the tractor towards the right side, and thereby the body of the tractor- trailer came in contact with the auto-rickshaw. The auto- rickshaw turned turtle on the road. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 4. The notice was issued to the owners of the tractor-trailer and the auto-rickshaw. Although they have appeared through the counsel, they have not chosen to file any objections. 5. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., i.e., the insurer of the Tractor-Trailer filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the tractor-trailer did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is contended that only the Tractor is insured and not the Trailer. There is a breach of the policy condition, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 6. The New India Assurance Company Limited i.e., the insurer of the Auto Rickshaw filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and accordingly, prays to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 dismiss the claim petition against the New India Assurance Company Limited. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to P15. Conversely, on the other hand, an official of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited was examined as R.W.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 14.11.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,77,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till deposit. It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directed the Oriental Insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 Company Limited to deposit the compensation amount to the petitioner. 10. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1598/2005, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the tractor is insured with the company, and the trailer is not insured. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 14. Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 15. The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability. 16. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a copy of the charge sheet marked as EX.P8, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor- trailer. Regarding Liability: 17. The issue involved in the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., VS YASHWANT TUKARAM KESARKAR AND ANOTHER in MFA NO.21101/2013, disposed of on 30.07.2025. Wherein, this court placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 Honnamma and others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1027. At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held as follows: “11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. 12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.” (emphasis supplied) 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable would not be applicable, and held that the liability of the insurer of the tractor would extend to the accident caused to the trailer, resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. 19. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal was justified in fastening - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12946 MFA No. 100598 of 2015 the liability on the Insurance Company. I do not find any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 14.11.2014 passed in MVC No.1598/2005 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal, is hereby confirmed. iii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18