- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8844 MFA No. 21955 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21955 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, R. O., HUBBALLI. … APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANTHAPA PUJAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O DURGAPPA GOBBI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUDARIHAL, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. … RESPONDENTS (R1-HELD SUFFICIENT; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.629/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8844 MFA No. 21955 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) 1. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 06.02.2012 passed in MVC No.629/2006 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Rabennur (for short ‘the Tribunal), questioning both the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the liability fastened upon the insurer. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 12.05.2006 at around 1.30 PM, while proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No. KA-27/E-1591 as a pillion rider from Kudrihal to Ranebennur, a Tractor-Trailer bearing Nos.KA-27/T-9207 and T-6011, coming from the opposite direction at high speed, was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It collided with the motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. 3. The claimant contended that the accident was solely due to the negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8844 MFA No. 21955 of 2012 driver. He further contended that the vehicle was insured and thus liability should rest with the Insurance Company. 4. Upon careful examination of the claim petition, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,600/- and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, based on the existence of a valid insurance policy. Aggrieved by fastening the liability as well as quantum of compensation, the insurer is in appeal before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tractor alone was insured, whereas the Trailer was not. Therefore, the Insurance Company contends that it is not liable for the accident involving the uninsured trailer. 6. However, it is a well-established principle in motor vehicle law that once a trailer is attached to a tractor, both become a single operational unit. A trailer - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8844 MFA No. 21955 of 2012 cannot move on its own and depends entirely on the tractor for movement. Hence, when the tractor is insured, liability extends to the trailer as well, especially when the accident involves the tractor-trailer as a unit. 7. The contention of the Insurance Company is therefore untenable and contrary to settled legal precedent. 8. It was further submitted by the appellant that the motorcycle rider did not possess a valid driving licence. However, the FIR, complaint, charge sheet, and other prosecution materials clearly establish that the entire negligence is attributable to the driver of the Tractor-Trailer. 9. The claimant, being a pillion rider, was a third party and had no role in the accident or the operation of the motorcycle. Therefore, whether the rider held a valid driving licence is irrelevant in determining the insurer’s liability. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8844 MFA No. 21955 of 2012 10. Moreover, the Tribunal has correctly applied legal principles in concluding that the non-possession of driving licence by the rider of the motorcycle does not absolve the Insurance Company of its liability, especially when the claimant is an innocent third party. 11. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has rightly taken the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/-, based on available evidence and prevailing standards. 12. The assessment of injuries, treatment costs, loss of income during the laid-up period, and long-term impact on the claimant’s life have been duly considered, and the awarded compensation is just and reasonable. 13. There is no error in the Tribunal’s reasoning or calculation that warrants interference by this Court. 14. The Tribunal rightly fastened liability on the Owner and Insurance Company and is and legally sound and sustainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8844 MFA No. 21955 of 2012 15. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. (ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.629/2006 dated 06.02.2012 stands confirmed. (iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount within a four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order (iv) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. (v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RHR/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38