- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101825 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD JUBILEE CIRCLE, P B ROAD DHARWAD. REPRESENTED BY DY. MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VITHAL S/O. RAMAPPA INGOLI AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O. B. GUDIHAL, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. VEERABHADRAPAP S/O. SHIDDAPPA TUKKAPPANAVAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER NO. KA 25/7143/7144 R/O.YEMMETTI, TQ: KALAGHATAGI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.818/2012 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, DHARWAD BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISISON, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor vehicles Act (hereinafter the “M.V.Act” for short) challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.818/2012 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Dharwad, sitting at Kalaghatagi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 11.02.2007, the petitioner along with some persons while returning to bring cow dung manure to the agricultural lands of respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the tractor and trailer. While returning from Dharwad, after loading cow dung manure in the tractor and trailer, the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he lost control over the said vehicle. As a result, the tractor and trailer turtled and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 sustained grievous injuries in the accident and hence, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioner has not suffered a permanent disability. It is contended that the driver of the tractor was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the tractor and trailer in question. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the petitioner was traveling as an unauthorised passenger in the tractor and trailer in question and the owner had violated the policy conditions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-6. The respondents have not examined any witness but the Insurance Company got marked the insurance policy as Ex.R-1 wit consent. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.43,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and held that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award, filed this appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits the petitioner and others were traveling in the tractor and trailer as unauthorized passengers. He also submits that the claim petition was filed after 5 years and there is a delay in filing the claim petition. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in awarding the compensation. On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the officer of the Insurance Company did not enter the witness box and also not examined any eyewitness to establish that the petitioner was traveling as an unauthorised passenger in the offending tractor. He also submits that the burden is on the Insurance Company to prove that the petitioner and others were traveling as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 unauthorized passengers in the offending vehicle. He further submits that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the maintainability of the claim petition. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and also injuries sustained by the petitioner and others. The petitioner has produced the copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P-5 which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioner has contended that he was working as a coolie in the tractor and while returning from Dharwad, after loading cow dung manure in the tractor and trailer, the driver of the tractor - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and turtled the vehicle. 14. The Insurance Company has taken a defence in the statement of objection that the petitioner and others were traveling as unauthorized passengers, which is in violation of policy conditions. The burden is on the Insurance Company to establish that the petitioner and others were traveling as unauthorized passengers. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not led any rebuttal evidence to disprove the evidence of the petitioner. 15. The Insurance Company has also taken a specific defence in the written statement that the claim petition is filed after lapse of 5 years from the date of accident. Admittedly, as of the date of filing the claim petition, no limitation was prescribed for filing a claim petition. The Tribunal, considering the entire material on record rightly justified in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, I do not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12579 MFA No. 101825 of 2014 find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 27.09.2013 passed in M.V.C.No.818/2012 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T., Dharwad, sitting at Kalaghatagi is confirmed. (iii) The Registry is directed to transfer the amount in deposit and records, if any to the tribunal. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18