- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22880 OF 2012 (MV-D) BETWEEN: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, 4TH FLOOR, V.A. KALBURGI MANSION, OPPOSITE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKRAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA DIDAGUR, AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, 2. DYAMAVVA W/O SHANKRAPPA DIDAGUR, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. ARUN S/O SHANKRAPPA DIDAGUR, AGE ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1. ALL ARE R/O: HOSALLI, TQ: AND DIST: HAVERI. 4. SHIVASHANKAR S/O VENKATA BOVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, R/O: HALEMALALKOPPA, POST: SANTHEKADUR, (OWNER OF TRACTOR NO. KA-14/TA-1921 AND TRAILER NO. KA-17/T-3929). … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) R MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07-03-2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.61/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, HAVERI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT S 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 07.03.2012 passed in MVC No.61/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Haveri1 on the ground that the accident is arising out of use of tractor and trailer. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. The facts were peculiar; therefore, it is profitable to state the facts of how the accident is occurred. On 09.10.2010, the deceased was working as laborer in L and T Company as the said L and T Company had received contract work from MESCOM for fixing an electrical board on 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 Halemalalikoppa road near Mangalamma’s house at Shimoga. At that time, when the claimant was working for erection of electric pole, a Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-14/TA-1921 and KA-17/T-3929 came from Ram Nagar side towards Halemalalikoppa with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver without observing minimum caution required. At that time, behind the Trailer, its hook picked up the electric wire that was about to fix to the pole but dragged the said wire and due to this, the electric pole was broke down and fell down on the head of the deceased, who was working under the said pole. Due to this, the deceased sustained grievous injuries to the head and all over the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Therefore, these are the peculiar facts involved in the case involved in the case causing the death of the deceased in this accident. 4. By averring so, the claimants have filed claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has held that the death of the deceased arose out of use of Tractor and Trailer, thus - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 determined the compensation under various heads as follows: Sl. No. Heads Amount 1. Towards loss of dependency. Rs.4,80,060/- 2. Towards loss of estate. Rs.10,000/- 3. Towards loss of love and affection. Rs.10,000/- 4. Towards funeral and transportation. Rs.15,000/- Total: Rs.5,15,000/- 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, relying on the evidence, submitted that the death of the deceased was not caused by a motor vehicle accident. He further contended that the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-14/TA-1921 and KA-17/T-3929, did not strike the deceased, but he died under the circumstances that, wire and electric pole have fallen on the deceased, and for this, the tractor and trailer were not at all responsible for the accident. Therefore, submitted that it is not a motor vehicle accident. Furthermore, he submitted that trailer was not insured, but only tractor engine was insured. Therefore, on these grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 prays to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and award fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants justified the judgment and award and submitted that due to the driver’s rash and negligent use of the tractor and trailer, the trailer’s hook caught an electric wire, which was dragged along. Consequently, the electric pole was broken down and fell on the deceased’s head. Thus, the death of the deceased is proved to be arising out of tractor and trailer and accordingly, they support the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. 7. Upon considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, it is clear that the facts are not in dispute. The only question to be considered by considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is, under what circumstances the deceased died. The deceased was employed as a workman with L & T Company, which was executing contract work related to the installation of electric poles. While the deceased was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 engaged in the process of installing an electric pole, a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.KA-14/TA-1921 and KA- 17/T-3929 came near to electric pole and accidentally, the hook of trailer became entangled with an electric wire, that was about to be fixed to the electric pole. The tractor and trailer continued to move forward, and the driver, unaware of the situation, dragged the electric wire. As a result, the electric wire became stretched, causing the electric pole to snap and fall on the deceased, who was working at the site. Due to the grievous injuries sustained in the incident, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 8. Although the tractor and trailer did not directly strike the deceased, the circumstances surrounding their operation, specifically the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, led to the hook of trailer catching the electric wire. Even at a certain distance, the driver ought to have stopped the tractor and trailer. But due to speed driving of the tractor and trailer, the electric pole broke down and fell on the deceased. The hook of trailer picked up electric wire, resulting in breaking down electric pole. Thus, the tractor - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 and trailer is having nexus to the death occurred to the deceased, as described above. Therefore, in this circumstance, it is proved that there is rashness and negligence by the driver of a tractor, which is correctly appreciated by the Tribunal. Therefore, it is proved that the death of the deceased is arising out of use of the tractor and trailer, as discussed above. 9. To meet out other contentions, the tractor engine is insured and trailer is not insured and due to picking up of electric pole by the hook of trailer and since the trailer is not insured, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, tractor engine is a mechanically propelled vehicle, whereas trailer is not a mechanically propelled vehicle. Trailer alone do not move without tractor engine. When a trailer is attached to a tractor engine by an iron rod, the whole component of the tractor and trailer becomes a moving vehicle. Therefore, when a tractor is insured and trailer is attached to a tractor and due to such attachment, when the tractor pulls the trailer, because the vehicle - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 becomes a whole component and because of wire fixed to the hook of trailer, but the Insurance Company, because the tractor engine alone is insured, cannot be held escapable from its liability. 10. Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘M.V. Act’) defines ‘Motor Vehicle’ as follows: (28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding [twenty-five cubic centimeters]. 11. 11. Section 2(44) of the M.V. Act, defines ‘Tractor’ as follows: “tractor” means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 12. Section 2(46) of the M.V. Act, defines ‘Trailer’ as follows: “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi- trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. 13. Therefore, tractor engine is a vehicle or motor vehicle, which is mechanically propelled vehicle and trailer, is intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Therefore, when the trailer is attached to tractor, then the whole tractor and trailer becomes component of motor vehicle. As per the definition of Section 2(44) of the M.V. Act, the tractor, being motor vehicle, is not itself constructed to carry any load. But when the tractor is usable, when tractor is attached to the trailer, the trailer means which is intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, therefore, when these definitions of motor vehicle, vehicle tractor and trailer are interpreted, it becomes whole vehicle. Therefore, for the trailer, if insurance policy is not issued, but only the tractor is insured, is not a ground to exonerate the Insurance Company. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 14. When the tractor and trailer attached and both are moving, even if, tractor alone is insured and trailer is not insured, but the insurer of tractor is liable and responsible to pay compensation. If trailer is not attached with tractor, then the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company could have been accepted. But, in the present case, the trailer is attached with tractor and because of tractor is pulling the trailer; therefore, both tractor and trailer were in a moving condition becoming a whole component of motor vehicle. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the very similar facts and circumstances in the case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Honnamma and others2, has observed at paragraph No.11 as follows: 11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor 2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2135/2023 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. 16. Therefore, my above view is supported by the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Honnamma (stated supra). The accident is caused, when trailer was pulled by tractor and when trailer is attached to a tractor as stated above, the whole component of both tractor and trailer would become motor vehicle as per the definitions under Sections 2(28), 2(44) and 2(46) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation, even if, the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 tractor engine alone is insured. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 17. With regard to quantum of compensation also, the Tribunal has correctly determined by considering parameters correctly. Therefore, there is no need make interference in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC No.61/2011 dated 07.03.2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Haveri, is confirmed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8976 MFA No. 22880 of 2012 iii) The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. iv) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA para Nos.1 to 4 PMP para Nos.5 to end CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 52