- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38840 MFA No. 5569 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5569 OF 2022 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SMT LAKSHMI, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O SRI CHANNAKESHAVA, R/AT SHIVAJYOTHI ROAD, BASAVANAHALLI VILLGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVAKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGAPPA DRIVER, R/O KALLUDODDI, SHANTHINGAR VILLGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101 2. SRI CHANNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38840 MFA No. 5569 of 2022 S/O SRI MALLAPPA SHETTY, R/AT SHIVAJYOTHI ROAD, BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101 3. THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMAPNY LIMITED, YASHORAM COMPLEX, R. G. ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 126 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHIKKANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED; SMT. PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.09.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 287/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,90,410/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38840 MFA No. 5569 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.287/2018 dated 09.09.2021 by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Chikkamagalur, the owner of the vehicle is before this court questioning the compensation awarded to the claimant. 2.The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. It is the case that on 21.02.2018 at about 08.30 p.m the claimant was proceeding in a Ape goods auto which was driven by respondent No.1. After unloading the goods, when the claimant was proceeding near Moorje, the opposite vehicle i.e, the respondent No.1 being the driver of the vehicle drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which he lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle was capsized. The claimant submits that due to the accident, he sustained the injuries. Considering the injuries, the tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: Sl. No. Heads Compensation Awarded 1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 10,000/- 2. Loss of future earnings : Rs. 1,30,560/- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38840 MFA No. 5569 of 2022 3. Conveyance charges : Rs. 5,000/- 4. Loss of amenities : Rs. 10,000/- 5. Loss of earning during treatment period : Rs. 24,000/- 6. Food and attendant charges : Rs. 10,000/- 7. Treatment, hospitalization and medicines : Rs. 850/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,90,410/- 3. Coming to question of liability, the tribunal has held that as per the insurance policy produced at Ex.R-4, no extra coverage in respect of any passenger such as owner or hirer traveling the vehicle has been taken. A passenger carried by a goods vehicle will not be covered by the insurance policy unless he is proved to be a passenger traveling by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. The tribunal has observed that, as per the evidence, it is an undisputed fact that the claimant was traveling in a goods vehicle, he was not an employee of the owner of the vehicle and no premium is paid for any passenger traveling in the vehicle. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to satisfy the amount and the liability is fixed on the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle/appellant submits that he is a loader and unloader in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38840 MFA No. 5569 of 2022 the vehicle, as such he is covered by the policy and the Tribunal had failed to consider all these aspects. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the tribunal had rightly granted the compensation. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation basing on the terms and conditions of the policy. In this case, according to the claimant, he is a gratuitous passenger. Once he is a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company has no liability. The tribunal had rightly considered and held that the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. In that view of the matter this court finds no reasons to interfere. i. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iii. The amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the tribunal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38840 MFA No. 5569 of 2022 iv. No costs. v. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 38