- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102159 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., GADAG, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, TONTADARYA VIDYAPEETH BUILDING, ROTARY CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD, GADAG-582 103, REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SHARANAPPA S/O MAILARAPPA MUNDARGI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 2. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA MUNDARAGI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HALLIGUDI, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582 118. 3. SRI. ANDAPPA S/O DEVAPPA GADDAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALLIGUDI, TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582 118, (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-26/T-6712 AND KA-26/T-6713). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR H. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 27.02.2017 PASSED IN ECA NO.154/2014, ON Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GADAG AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, GADAG. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING-INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.02.2017, passed in ECA No.154/2014, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Gadag (for short, ‘learned Commissioner’), questioning the liability fastened on it. 2. The learned Commissioner while awarding compensation has fastened liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the learned Commissioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2007 at about 10 p.m., respondent No.2 sent the deceased Basavaraj along with the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.KA- 26/T-6712 and KA-26/T-6713 to bring paddy-grass from Kesaratti village in Gangavati taluka. As per the direction of respondent No.2, the deceased Basavaraj and another Mudiayappa Kotrappa Kattimani left Halligudi village. The driver of the tractor and trailer drove the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Milestone erected on the road side, due to which, the deceased Basavaraj fell down from the Tractor and Trailer and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital from Chikkabenakal to Gangavati for treatment, but he died on the way near Hirebehakal village before reaching the hospital. 6. The question that arises for consideration is, when the deceased Basavaraj was sitting on the mudguard and was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 travelling in the tractor and trailer, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants? 7. This is squarely covered by the judgment of full bench of this Court in the case of GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA AND ANOTHER Vs. K. GULEPPA AND OTHERS1. It is held by the Full Bench of this Court that a person who is sitting on the mud-guard of a Tractor is not required to be covered by statutory insurance policy, as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Further, it is held that in the case of injury or death occurred, when the victim was sitting on the mud-guard of tractor and trailer, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation to the claimants. Therefore, it is proved that the Tractor and Trailer admittedly is a transport vehicle used for the purpose of carrying agricultural produce and the insurance policy is a package policy for covering the risk of transporting agricultural produce only. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the 1 ILR 2021 KAR 3377 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 owner and the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation to the claimants. Thus, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be allowed in part by holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of Tractor and Trailer. 8. However, the very similar facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. RENGANATHAN AND OTHERS Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND OTHERS2, has held that an order of pay and recovery could be made. In the present case, the deceased Basavaraj was travelling in the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-26/T-6712 by sitting on the mud-guard of the said tractor and trailer. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the deceased Basavaraj was met with an accident. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. RENGANATHAN (referred supra), which is also having same and similar facts that the deceased died while sitting on the mudguard and an order of pay and recovery is made, by 2 MANU/SC/1705/2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 exonerating the Insurance Company, has ordered for pay and recovery by directing that the Insurance Company to satisfy the claim at the first instance to the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. Therefore, in this case also, it is ordered that the Insurance Company is exonerated from payment of compensation. However, 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. 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. 10. The learned Commissioner has awarded interest on the compensation at 9% per annum. But the statutory interest shall be 12% p.a. Accordingly, the compensation amount - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 awarded by the learned Commissioner shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 days after the date of accident till the date of deposit. 11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The judgment and award dated 27.02.2017, passed in ECA No.154/2014, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Gadag, stands modified holding that the liability fastened on the Insurance Company is set aside by fastening liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. c) The compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 days after the date of accident till the date of deposit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 d) 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. e) 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. f) The Insurance Company shall deposit the remaining amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7667 MFA No. 102159 of 2017 g) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal and shall not be disbursed to the owner of the tractor and trailer. h) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14