- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2565 OF 2016 (MV-I) BETWEEN: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SHIVAMOGGA BRANCH THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SMT.C.K.PRAMILA. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. SEETHA RAMA RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VISHWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SRI PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O CHOWDAPPA R/O VEERANNANA BENAVALLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. SRI. YAMUNA BAI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O KUBYA NAIKA, R/O KONAGAVALLI THANDA SHIVAMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT (OWNER OF TT NO.KA.14/TA-3497-98). Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 3. SRI. MAHESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O MALLESHAPPA R/O VEERANNANA BENAVALLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK & DISTRICT (DRIVER OF TT NO.KA.14/TA-3497-98) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. THYAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:19.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.291/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MACT-III, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.58,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 19th November 2015, passed by the III Addl.District Judge and III Addl.MACT, Shivamogga, (for short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.291/2012. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 3. The brief facts of the case of both parties before the Tribunal are that: On 29.12.2011, at about 1.00 p.m., the claimant was going by walk along with his father and other villagers to Kumsi for personal work. While returning from the said place, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-14-TA- 3497-98 by its driver. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as an inpatient from 29.12.2011 to 02.01.2012. He sustained fractures of the left lower limb and ankle. He was aged about 14 years at the time of the accident. He was a student. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered from permanent disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed to award of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. 4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owners and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 5. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement, denying the contentions of the claim petitioner and further contended that there was a delay in filing the complaint and also denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 7. The claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 14 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.3 examined one witness as RW-1. 8. After conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal heard the arguments and held that accident occurred due to rash - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.58,000/- on all heads. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both side. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer vehemently contended that, as per Ex.P-6 - wound certificate, and the evidence of PW-2 - doctor, the said boy was travelling in the trailer of the tractor and lost his balance and fell down from the trailer and sustained injuries. The case made out by the claimant in the claim petition, as well as evidence of PW-1 are belived by the evidence of PW-2 and Ex.P-6. the Tribunal has not considered the said point and has erroneously held that the accident was proved only on the basis of charge sheet and its enclosures, which is erroneous. Therefore, prayed to interfere in the said findings. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has appreciated the prosecution papers and has rightly held that accident - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 occurred due to the negligence of driver of the tractor. The claimant was aged about 14 years at the time of the accident and the Tribunal has awarded marginal amount of compensation of Rs.58,000/-. In view of these reasons, the judgment does not call for any interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. According to the evidence of PW-1, who is the father of the claimant, when the claimant was going by walk, he was hit by the tractor-trailer due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. PW-2 in his examination- in-chief has stated that on 29.12.2011, at 2.30 p.m., claimant was admitted in the hospital, near Kumsi after fall from the trailer of a tractor. He lost his consciousness. The very fact was mentioned in Ex.P-6. These materials are placed on record by the claimant. They are contrary to the case made out in the claim petition. These documents are totally perverted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the manner in which the accident occurred as carried in the charge sheet is different from Ex.P-6 and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 evidence of PW-2. Therefore, the mere fact that the driver of the offending vehicle pleaded guilty and paid the fine is not sufficient to conclude that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. Carrying the passengers in a goods vehicle that too in an agricultural land is against the provision of law. Therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle has violated the provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the risk of the claimant is not covered under the policy of insurance, respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, it is to be exonerated and owner of the tractor i.e. respondent No.1 - Smt. Yamuna Bai is liable to pay compensation. 13. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2015 passed by the III Additional District Judge and MACT-III, Shivamogga, in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24734 MFA No. 2565 of 2016 MVC.No.291/2012 is set aside and respondent No.3 is absolved of its liability to pay compensation. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the amount of compensation. Respondent No.1 shall deposit the amount within six weeks from the date of award. iii. Whatever the amount deposited by the insurer shall be refunded to the insurer on due identification. Send back the trial Court records along with the copy of this judgment to the Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK,AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15