- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102806 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, TONTADARYA VIDYAPEETH BUILDING, ROTARY CIRCLE, GADAG, DIST: GADAG, REPRESENTED THROUGH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ANKOLA ARCADE, I FLOOR, OPP. KALABHAVAN, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD, REPRESENT BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. … APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SMT. SONABAI W/O. SOMARAJ NAYAK, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.SEVALAL NAGAR, HOLE-ALUR, TQ: RON, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S., 1A. DEVENDRA S/O SOMARAJ NAIK, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOLE-ALUR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. 2. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O BASAPPA SHIRAHATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-26/TA-972 AND 973, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 R/O: KALAKAPUR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582 209. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. YALAGI KAVYA SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A); SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR P. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.08.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.32/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT RON AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 06.08.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ron, in MVC No.32/2013, questioning the liability fastened on the insurance company to pay compensation. 2. Heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed before the Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. It is the case of the claimant that on 11.06.2010, the deceased Rajendra was working as a coolie in the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-26/TA-972 and he was sitting on the tractor engine while the tractor was moving and due to rash and negligent driving of the said tractor, the accident was caused. As the deceased fell down on the ground from the tractor engine, wheels of the tractor ran over on him, therefore, he died on the spot. The tribunal, upon the petition, while awarding compensation fastened liability on the appellant insurance company. The complaint is lodged by the brother of the deceased on the very same day and stated that the deceased was travelling on the tractor by sitting over the tractor engine and due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, the deceased while he was sitting on the tractor engine fell down on the road and wheels of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 tractor ran over the deceased and he died and the same is mentioned in the FIR and investigation is made and charge sheet is filed, by which it is proved that the deceased fell on the road and wheels of tractor and trailer ran over the deceased, therefore, he died. 5. All these documentary evidence conclusively prove that the deceased was sitting on the tractor engine as he was allowed by the driver of the tractor. Therefore, the question is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga and another vs. K.Guleppa and others1, wherein it is held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in the cases the deceased/injured are sitting on the mudguard of tractor engine. In Gadhilingappa case (supra) it is held that the insurance company is not liable 1 ILR 2021 KAR 3377 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 to pay compensation in respect of the death or injury occurred when sitting over the tractor engine. 6. In the present case the deceased was sitting on the tractor engine. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the owner. Therefore the liability fastened on the insurance company is liable to be exonerated. However, in the similar facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Renganathan and others Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., and others2, upon the fact that the deceased was sitting on the engine of the tractor, by exonerating the insurance company to pay compensation, order of pay and recovery is made. Therefore, in this case also the order of pay and recovery is made by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra. Therefore, the insurance company at the first instance shall pay compensation to 2 MANU/SC/1705/2022 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the tractor No.KA-26/TA-972 and KA-26/TA-973. 7. 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 others3. 8. With this observation, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 06.08.2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge 3 2004 AIR SCW 952. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 and Additional MACT, Ron, in MVC No.32/2013 is modified holding that liability fastened on the Insurance Company is set aside by fastening liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. iii) The owner of tractor No.KA-26/TA- 972 and KA-26/TA-973 is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. iv) The insurance company is exonerated from liability to pay compensation to the claimants. v) However, at the first instance the insurance company shall pay compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the tractor No.KA-26/TA-972 and KA- 26/TA-973. vi) The insurance company is at liberty to file execution petition before the jurisdictional executing Court as against the owner of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 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 others3. vii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal for disbursement. viii) 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. ix) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned tribunal. x) No order as to costs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8117 MFA No. 102806 of 2014 xi) Draw modified award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38