- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20885 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAWAPUR, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SRI. RAGHUVEER N.NAYAK. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAXMIBAI KOM. MANJAPPA AMBOJI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. MAHAVEER S/O. MANJAPPA AMBOJI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. SANTOSH S/O. MANJAPPA AMBOJI, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. ANAND S/O. MANJAPPA AMBOJI, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 (SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1) ALL ARE R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ: SHIRAHATTI HALAVASTI CHALAGERI, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 5. SRI JAIPAL S/O. SHIVAPPA BALUCHAGI, R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ : SHIRAHATTI, DIST : HAVERI. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-26/T-4072-73) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.V. KENCHAREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; (R4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1); NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05-03-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.258/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, AS AGAINST THE APPELLANTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 05.03.2011 passed in MVC No.258/2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional MACT, Ranebennur (for short, ‘Tribunal’), on the ground that the deceased had travelled in the tractor and trailer as gratuitous passenger. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Manjappa Amboji (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) was a coolie engaged by respondent No.5/owner of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-26/T-4072- 73. On 23.09.2008, at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased was instructed by respondent No.5 to load onion crop from the field of one Somappa. Accordingly, as per the instructions of respondent No.5, the deceased loaded onion crop on the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-26/T-4072-73. After loading the said crop, while returning along with load in the said tractor and trailer, by sitting on load of onion crop, the deceased has fallen from the tractor and trailer. Due to which, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 the deceased died on spot. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition seeking compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the tractor trailer is used for hire and contract basis for the purpose of commercial use for earning commercial gain. Therefore, there is violation of conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the owner of the tractor and trailer. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND OTHER Vs. MALLAPPA AND ANOTHER dated 07.11.2023 in MFA No.103317/2014. 4. On perusal of Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 complaint, Ex.P3 re- statement and Ex.P4 charge sheet, it is disclosed that the deceased was instructed to load onion crop on the tractor and trailer of respondent No.5 and after loading the said crop, while returning along with the load in the said tractor and trailer by sitting on load of onion crop, it met with accident and the deceased Manjappa died on spot. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased had travelled along with agricultural goods in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 tractor and trailer. They would prove that the owner of the tractor and trailer has given it for hire basis for the purpose of commercial use for earning commercial gain. Therefore, it is proved that the tractor and trailer was used for hire charges, then there is an infraction proved. Hence the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. The owner is liable to pay compensation. 5. The Insurance Company is able to establish the defence as per sub-section (2) of section 149 of M.V.Act. Hence as per sub-section (1), (5) and (7) of section 149 of the M.V.Act, and also as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of PAPPU AND OTHERS Vs. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297; and also as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. YELLAVVA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 ACJ 2560, the Insurance Company shall satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the offending - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 vehicle. However, the Insurance Company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the offending vehicle and may seek attachment of movables or immovable properties or both, till recovery is made and also the recovery process can be as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952. Re: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION. 6. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The Trial Court has awarded compensation as follows: 1 ªÀÄÈvÀ£À CªÀ®A©üvÀjUÉ DVgÀĪÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÁÌV gÀÆ.3,64,000=00 2 1 £Éà CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ fêÀ£À ¸ÀAUÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀAavÀgÁVzÀÝPÁÌV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAqÀ£À ¦æÃw, ¥ÉæêÀÄ ®ÄPÁì£ÀPÁÌV gÀÆ.20,000=00 3 2 jAzÀ 4 £Éà CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ªÉÄð£À ¦æÃw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁvÀì®å¢AzÀ ªÀAavÀgÁVzÀÝPÁÌV gÀÆ.15,000=00 4 ±ÀªÀ ¸ÀA¸ÁÌgÀ, wy ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀªÀ ¸ÁUÁtÂPÉUÁV ªÀiÁrzÀ RaðUÁV gÀÆ.5000=00 5 ¸ÀA¥ÀzÀzÀ £ÀµÀÖPÁÌV gÀÆ.5000=00 CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¹UÀĪÀ MlÄÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ºÀt gÀÆ.4,09,000=00 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 7. The deceased was aged 40 years at the time of accident and working as a coolie and was receiving a salary of Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased was married. Therefore, 1/3rd of the income is to be deducted. Considering the age of the deceased, appropriate applicable multiplier is 15. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,60,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,64,000/- towards loss of dependency. There is no much difference in the compensation now calculated and the one awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, it is held to be correct and left unaltered. But the Tribunal has committed an error in granting compensation towards loss of consortium, loss of estate and towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. 8. The claim petition is filed under section 163-A of the M.V.Act. Therefore the claimants are entitled for compensation under conventional heads as per the structured chart provided in Schedule-II in the Act. Therefore the claimants are entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,500/-towards loss of estate and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of funeral expenses and transportation of dead body. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 9. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for total compensation under various heads as under: Sl. No. Heads. Amount in (Rs.) 1. Towards loss of dependency 3,64,000 2. Towards loss of consortium 5,000 3. Towards loss of estate 2,500 4. Towards loss of funeral expenses and transportation of dead body 2,000 Total: 3,73,500 10. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,73,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, as against Rs.4,09,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending vehicle as discussed above. 12. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 05.03.2011 passed in MVC No.258/2009 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Additional MACT, Ranebennur, stands modified. iii) The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,73,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. vi) Send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. vii) No order as to costs. viii) The apportionment, deposit and disbursement of enhanced compensation shall be made as per award of the Tribunal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 ix) The amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. x) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 52 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD [UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., VS. LAXMIBAI KOM. MANJAPPA AMBOJI AND OTHERS] 17.04.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL ORDER ORDER ON IA NO.1 OF 2025 Heard the arguments on IA No.1/2025. This Court on 30.01.2025 has disposed of the appeal by awarding compensation of Rs.3,73,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, as against the compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and also at paragraph No.11 of the judgment, it is observed that the insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending vehicle. As such, the order of ‘pay and recovery is made at paragraph No.11 and the reasons are assigned in the said judgment at paragraph Nos.4 and 5. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:304 MFA No. 20885 of 2012 Due to typographical error/omission in the operative portion of the judgment the order of ‘pay and recovery’ is not reflected. Accordingly, in the operative portion of the order in page No.10, it is ordered at clause No.(xi) as follows: “The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending vehicle”. With the above, IA No.1/2025 is allowed and the same is corrected. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SSD List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1