- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 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.21412 OF 2012 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. M.C. RAJGOPAL S/O. CHIKKAPPA SHETTY, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: ANAVATTI VILLAGE, MAIN BAZAR, TQ: SORABA, DIST: SHIMOGA, NOW AT HANAGODI COMPLEX, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B. MRUTHYUNJAYA S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: OLD CINEMA ROAD, ANAVATTI, TQ: SORABA, DIST: SHIMOGA. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-15/1959) 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEA COMPLEX, OPP. CORPORATION OFFICE, DHARWAD. (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-15/1959) POLICY NO.240403/31/05/01/00010832. VALID FROM 15/03/2006 TO 14/03/2007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19-11-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.162/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RANEBENNUR AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY SADDLING THE LIABILITY ON BOTH THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERELY AND ETC., Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 19.11.2011, passed in MVC No.162/2008, on the file of Fast Track Judge & MACT, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), seeking enhancement of compensation and questioning the liability fastened on the owner of canter lorry. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 11.7.2006 at about 23-00 hours the claimant was travelling in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-15/1959 from Hubli to Anavatti via Shiggaon and Bankapur along with goods purchased at Hubli. The driver of the said lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and regulations and when it came on P.B.Road near Paled village, the driver lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the front vehicle, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 which was going extremely on the left side of the road and caused the accident. Due to accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Thus, filed claim petition, seeking compensation. 4. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum by fastening liability on the owner of the canter lorry by exonerating Insurance Company on the reason that the claimant had travelled in the lorry as a gratuitous passenger. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant travelled in the lorry along with goods of grocery. Therefore, he was not an unauthorized passenger. Hence, prays to modify the judgment and award by fastening liability on the Insurance Company and also by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. According to the claimant, accident is caused on 11.7.2006 and the complaint is given on 18.7.2006. There is a delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint. In the cross- examination, the claimant had admitted that he has loaded 4 tons of grocery in the lorry. But the claimant did not prove the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 fact before the Tribunal that he loaded four tons of grocery. Therefore, there is no evidence that he has loaded 4 tons of grocery in the lorry and has travelled along with the said goods. Ex.P1 - FIR and Ex.P5 – Charge sheet do not prove that grocery was loaded in the canter lorry and the claimant has travelled along with goods in the said lorry. In the cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that there is no document to produce that he has purchased goods of grocery and loaded in the lorry. When the claimant has stated that he has purchased 4 tons of grocery and loaded it in the lorry, then at least there could have been some prima facie evidence of purchasing such huge quantity of goods of grocery. But in this regard, there is no evidence by the claimant. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the claimant has travelled in the lorry as a gratuitous passenger and accordingly, it is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company for payment of compensation. 7. In the present case it is proved that the claimant has travelled in the lorry as a gratuitous passenger. Hence, 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 (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 claimant and then recover it from the owner of the offending 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. 8. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 receipt of a certified copy of this judgment at the first instance and then recover it from the owner of offending vehicle (canter lorry) as discussed above. REG: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: 9. There is no evidence to prove that the claimant has suffered grievous injury and fracture injuries. The Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Since there is no fracture injuries and injuries are simple in nature, therefore, the Tribunal is correct in awarding global compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, insofar as awarding of compensation, there is no need of interference by this Court. 10. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 19.11.2011, passed in MVC No.162/2008, on the file of Fast Track Judge & MACT, Ranebennur, is modified only to the extent holding that the Insurance Company shall pay compensation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 to the claimant at first instance and then recover it from the owner. iii) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv) The Insurance Company shall satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the offending Vehicle. v) 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1882 MFA No. 21412 of 2012 vi) Send a copy of this judgment and award to the Tribunal. vii) No order as to costs. viii) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55