- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103269 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BELGAUM, NOW R/BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., "SEETA SMRITI" POST BOX NO.156, 1568, MARUTI GALLI, BELGAVI-590002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPA MUDDANNAVAR AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HANABARATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SMT. LAKKAWWA W/O. HANAMANTAPPA MUDDANNAVAR AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: HANABARATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O. TAMMANNA BIRADAR PATIL AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DASANATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI (OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING REGN.NO.KA-49/T-4148) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 4. SHRI. MALLAPPA NINGAPPA BADARWADI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: RAJANAKATTI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI, (OWNER OF TRAILER BEARING REGN.NO.KA-49/T-316) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2014 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. M.A.C.T, BAILHONGAL, IN MVC NO.2518/2012, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability, vide judgment and award dated 16.08.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.2518/2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, Bailhongal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 15.02.2012, at about 05:30 p.m., the deceased Hanumanthappa Balappa Muddannavar was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-3521, along with one Rayappa, to go to his native place Hanabaratti from Nesargi by riding the same at a moderate speed. When he came near the spot of the accident, at that time, the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-49/T-4148 and KA-49/T-316 was going towards Ankalagi at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. At that time, the deceased, by giving all signals, attempted to overtake the said tractor. In the process of overtaking the tractor, took the same immediate right, thereby the body of the trailer came in contact with the motorcycle and the rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries to the head and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 M.V. Act claiming compensation for the death of Hanumanthappa in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. A notice was issued to the owner of the offending tractor. He appeared through the counsel; however, he did not file a statement of objections. 4. The owner of the trailer bearing registration No.KA-49/T-316 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the tractor possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The rider of the motorcycle himself fell down from the motorcycle due to his rash and negligent riding. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the trailer. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 the insurer and owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/H-3521. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues. 7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1, examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2, and marked 6 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-6. Conversely, neither the owner of the trailer nor the officers of the Insurance Company entered the witness box and marked any documents. 8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 16.08.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.10,22,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till deposit and held that the owner and Insurance Company of the trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. 9. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award, filed this appeal. 10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the petitioners. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the tractor was not insured. He submits that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and not on the part of the driver of the tractor. He also submits that the said issue was not adequately considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company. He further submits that at least the Tribunal could have apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50:50. He also submits that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trailer was attached to the tractor. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He also submits that the deceased, while overtaking the tractor, was riding the motorcycle at a moderate speed, and the driver of the tractor immediately moved towards the right side of the road. As a result, the trailer hit the motorcycle and the deceased fell down, and the wheel of the trailer passed through the body of the deceased. He also submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of D. Lakshmana Murthy vs. Rajesh1. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in saddling the entire liability on the Insurance Company. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 1 KLJ 1998 VOL. 6, page No.290 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel to the parties. 14. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of liability. Reg. quantum of Liability: 15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death of Hanumanthappa in the road traffic accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The petitioners have specifically taken a contention in the petition that the deceased gave a signal to overtake the tractor. In the process, the driver of the tractor took the vehicle immediate right side and thereby the body of the trailer came in contact with the motorcycle and thereby the rider of the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries to the head and other vital parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The petitioners, to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 the driver of the tractor, produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P-5. The petitioners specifically pleaded in the petition that the body of the trailer touched the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result, the accident occurred. Neither the owner of the trailer nor the Insurance Company have examined any witness to rebut the said contention. 16. Admittedly, the trailer was insured with the Insurance Company, and the accident occurred due to the trailer touching the motorcycle. Hence, in view of the said discussion, the argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not hold water on the ground that the trailer was insured, but not the tractor. 17. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the said issue in the case of D. Lakshmana Murthy referred to supra, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court, considering the definition of the motor vehicle, tractor and trailer, has held as follows: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 “This definition of the 'trailer' very clearly reveals that a vehicle which is drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle is known as trailer. This definition per se reveals by necessary implication it has to be taken to be a vehicle to be drawn and is intended to be drawn by another vehicle (motor vehicle). So as it is intended to be drawn by another motor vehicle, it has been included within the definition of 'motor vehicle'. No motor vehicle can be made use of on the road unless it has been insured. The purpose of emphasizing about the insurance before a motor vehicle is drawn on the road is not to confer any benefit to the owner of the motor vehicle nor it is intended for the purpose of profit earning or for enabling the insurance company to make any profits or to enhance its business, but the purpose of laying emphasis on a motor vehicle being insured before it is moved on the road is for the benefit of the persons, namely, the persons who may be injured in accidents caused by the use of motor vehicle or it may be said for the benefit of the legal heirs of the deceased persons who die in motor accident, so that they may not be subjected to long suffering in getting compensation. When i so observe, I find support from the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme court in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 (SC) (para 13), where the Apex court has observed as under: "13. In order to divine the intention of the legislature in the course of interpretation of the relevant provisions there can scarcely be a better test than that of probing into the motive and philosophy of the relevant provisions keeping in mind the goals to be achieved by enacting the same, Ordinarily, it is not the concern of the legislature whether the owner of the vehicle insures his vehicle or not. If the vehicle is not insured any legal liability arising on account of third party risk will have to be borne by the owner of the vehicle. Why then has the legislature insisted on a person using a motor vehicle in a public place to insure against third party risk by enacting section 94. Surely, the obligation has not been imposed in order to promote the business of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community travelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or compensation to the dependants of the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered from the person held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise undertaken by the law courts would then be an exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and money cost invested from the scarce resources of the community would make a mockery of the injured victims, or the dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who themselves are obliged to incur not inconsiderable expenditure of time, money and energy in litigation. To overcome this ugly situation the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. To use the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 vehicle without the requisite third party insurance being in force is a penal offence. The legislature was also faced with another problem. The insurance policy might provide for liability walled in by conditions which may be specified in the contract of policy. In order to make the protection real, the legislature has also provided that the judgment obtained shall not be defeated by the incorporation of exclusion clauses other than those authorised by section 96 and by providing that except and save to the extent permitted by section 96 it will be the obligation of the insurance company to satisfy the judgment obtained against the persons insured against third party risks (vide section 96). In other words, the legislature has insisted and made it incumbent on the user of a motor vehicle to be armed with an insurance policy covering third party risks which is in conformity with the provisions enacted by the legislature. It is so provided in order to ensure that the injured victims of automobile accidents or the dependants of the victims of fatal accidents are really compensated in terms of money and not in terms of promise. Such a benign provision enacted by the legislature having regard to the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 fact that in the modern age the use of motor vehicles notwithstanding the attendant hazards, has become an inescapable fact of life, has to be interpreted in a meaningful manner which serves rather than defeats the purpose of the legislation. The provision has, therefore, to be interpreted in the twilight of the aforesaid perspective." (Emphasis added) Keeping this in view, the provisions have to be interpreted. When the trailer is insured by the insurance company, it insures with full and complete knowledge that a trailer should be drawn by use of another motor vehicle. When this is so, when trailer is drawn by use of a tractor, it becomes goods vehicle, but it comes within the category of motor vehicle. When it is insured as motor vehicle, in that case in my opinion, if the trailer is insured and the insurance company had insured the vehicle with full knowledge that it is to be drawn or intended to be drawn by use of another motor vehicle, then it is to be deemed that the company has taken to discharge the liability and to pay the compensation for injury caused by the use of the trailer which cannot be used without the use of a motor vehicle. So if the accident is caused by a tractor or by trailer itself, the insurance company's liability will be there irrespective of the fact that tractor was not insured. The case of Oriental - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 Insurance Co. Ltd., 1997 ACJ 512 (Karnataka), is distinguishable on its own fact. In that case, though tractor and trailer were moving on the road and the accident was caused by the trailer, but in that case, trailer was not insured one, instead tractor was insured by the insurance company. The insurance company insured the tractor and as the tractor which, doubt, is a motor vehicle in itself, but it is by itself not constructed to carry any load. Therefore, in such a case, it may well be said that when a tractor was insured, it was insured as a tractor only with no knowledge that it has to be used with a trailer. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) the tractor was insured, but the trailer was not insured. So in that case, the law that has been laid down that tractors are not intended to be used for the purpose of loading or for any other purpose. But so far as trailer is concerned, it very clearly reveals that it cannot be used without being used along with other motor vehicle such as tractor. So this makes a greater difference. Tractor is insured only as a tractor. But a trailer is insured with full knowledge that some other motor vehicle is also to be used along with the trailer. Hence, the liability of the insurance company has arisen.” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 18. Thus, it clearly reveals that the Trailer cannot be used without being used along with other motor vehicle, such as a tractor. In the instant case, the trailer was insured. When the trailer is insured by the Insurance Company, it insures with full knowledge that a trailer should be drawn by the use of another motor vehicle. When the liability of the Insurance Company had arisen, the Tribunal considered the said aspect properly and rightly saddled the liability on the Insurance Company. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and accordingly, I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. In view of the same, the point is answered accordingly. 19. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award date 16.08.2014 passed in M.V.C.No.2518/2012 by the learned - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12837 MFA No. 103269 of 2014 Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, Bailhongal is hereby confirmed. (iii) The office is directed to transmit the records and the amount in deposit to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11