- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102423 OF 2022 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100692 OF 2024 (MV-I) IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102423 OF 2022: BETWEEN: THE SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, THROUGH ITS DUTY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEYS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JAGADISH S/O SHRIKANT SHIRUR AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE AND MILK VENDING, R/O. PARAKANATTI, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SHRI BASAPPA NINGAPPA KURBET AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MELMATTI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. (OWNER OF EISHER TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA22/T3475) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED IS UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED IN Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 MVC NO.984/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.15,56,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION. IN MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100692 OF 2024: BETWEEN: SHRI. JAGADISH S/O SHRIKANT SHIRUR AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE AND MILK VENDING, R/O PARAKANATTI, TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. BASAPPA NINGAPPA KURBET AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O MELMATTI, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. (INSURER OF TRACTOR BEARING KA 22/T-3475 POLICY NO.68040431190200006017 VALID FROM 18-12-2019 TO 17-12-2020) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.984/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, SITTING AT GOKAK, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) These appeals are by the Insurer and the Claimant in M.V.C. No.984/2020 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge and M.A.C.T., Belagavi, sitting at Gokak [for short, ‘the Tribunal’]. The Insurer’s appeal is in M.F.A. No.102423/2022 and the Claimant’s appeal is in M.F.A. No.100692/2024. The Tribunal has awarded the Claimant a total sum of Rs.15,56,000/- under the following heads: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of future income Rs.8,91,000/- 2. Treatment expenses Rs.98,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.75,000/- 4. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/- 5. Marriage prospects Rs.4,00,000/- 6. Food and nourishment and attendant charges Rs.20,000/- 7. Loss during laid up period Rs.20,000/- 8. Conveyance. Rs.2,000/- TOTAL Rs.15,56,000/- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 2. The Claimant’s case in brief is as follows. On 16.05.2020, he was hired by Sri. Lagamappa Kurbet to work in his land [to pick stones] and the tractor bearing registration No. KA-22/T-3475 [insured with the Insurer] was also engaged by him to work on the land. A rotary was attached to this tractor and the driver of the tractor was negligent and as such, he suffered injuries resulting in amputation to his right leg with a stump of 8 inches. The Tribunal has examined this claim in the backdrop of the Insurer’s defense that it is not liable because the rotary was not separately insured. 3. The Tribunal has opined that a rotary, unlike a trailer, is an attachment which does not run on its own and therefore does not require a separate registration, and as such, the Insurer cannot deny its liability asserting that the rotary is not insured. The Tribunal has also distinguished the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurer holding that in the present case, the rotary did not have a motor of its own and was attached to the tractor. If Sri. N.R. Kuppellur, the learned counsel for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 the Insurer, proposes to substantiate the Insurer’s defense in the light of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga S/o. Ulluru Mallappa @ Yellappa and another vs. K. Guleppa and others1, Sri. Vinay S. Koujalagi, the learned counsel for the Claimant, supports the Tribunal’s finding on the Insurer’s liability seeking enhancement in the compensation contending that the Tribunal has erred in computing loss of future income taking the permanent disability at 30%. 4. In the light of the rival submissions, the point for consideration is: Whether there must be any interference with the Tribunal’s finding on the Insurer’s liability and the award of compensation towards loss of future income to the Claimant because the injury suffered by him. 5. The Insurer denies its liability relying upon the decision of the Full Court in Gadhilingappa [supra], and the Full Court’s finding is on whether an Insurer’s risk regarding the Insured’s employee when the accident is 1 AIR 2021 KAR 102 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 because of the use of a tractor with crushing machine or ploughing machine or any other implement attached and when such tractor alone is insured. The Full Bench in the afore case was considering the liability of the Insurer to indemnify the insured as against his/her employee. However, in the present case, it is undisputed that the Claimant was working in the field of another who had requested the use of the tractor with the rotary. This Court is of the considered view that the facts and circumstances of the present case must be distinguished to hold that the proposition exposited in the Full Bench decision, while deciding on whether an Insurer will be liable to indemnify the insured against any liability towards its employee, cannot be applied as rightly opined by the Tribunal. 6. On the next aspect of the question viz., the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future earning, this Court, at the outset, must observe that it is undisputed that the Claimant had suffered disability in both the lower limbs because of polio and therefore, his earning capacity qua a normal person was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1279-DB MFA No.102423 of 2022 C/W MFA No.100692 of 2024 affected. In fact, the Claimant’s case is that he was engaged by the landowner to pick stones in the land, a work which is normally entrusted to a person who suffers some inability. When the Tribunal’s finding on the assessment of permanent disability at 30% so examined, this Court cannot reasonably opine that there is any irregularity resulting in the Claimant not being awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, both the aspects in the point for consideration are answered accordingly and these appeals stand rejected. The amount deposited by the Insurer in its appeal be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. The office is also directed to transmit the Trial Court Records at the earliest. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28