- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21101 OF 2013 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI HEREIN REP BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029 REP BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.R MANE, ADV) AND: 1. YASHWANT TUKARAM KESARKAR AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: MATTIWADE, TQ: CHIKODI DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SUNIL SHAMRAO PATIL AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: MATTIWADE, TQ: CHIKODI DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1)(a) (aa) OF WC ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:20.12.2012 PASSED IN W.C NO.112/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.68,890/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.23 16:29:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT 1. M/s.New India Assurance Company Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 30(1)(a)(aa) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and award dated 20.12.2012 passed in WCA/SR No.112/2007 by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Divison No.1, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. Respondent No.1—claimant filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 contending that he was working as a coolie for loading and unloading sugar cane on the tractor and trailer belonging to respondent No.2- owner. That, on 09.03.2006, when he was travelling in the said vehicle from Banage for unloading sugar cane to the sugar factory and when he reached near - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 P.B.Road at Nipani, the said vehicle toppled down on the road and as a result of which, he sustained injuries resulting in the loss of earning capacity. 4. It is contented that, respondent No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle and the appellant herein is the insurer of the tractor alone (and not the trailer). 5. Respondent No.1-claimant herein, is the claimant and he was aged about 40 years and getting a wages of ₹2,000/- per month and a daily bata of ₹20/-. Hence, prays to allow the claim petition. 6. The insurance company-appellant herein, filed a statement of objections denying averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the trailer was not insured with it and there is no coverage under the insurance policy. Hence, the insurance company is not able to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the claimant-respondent No.1 herein. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 7. The Commissioner, based on the pleading of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. To prove the claim, two witnesses were examined on behalf of claimants and 11 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P11. Conversely, an official of insurance company was examined as RW-1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2. 9. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, after recording the evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a compensation of ₹68,890/- with interest and judgment dated 20.12.2012. 10. The insurance company-appellant, aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner for workmen's compensation, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 12. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that respondent No.1/claimant was working as a coolie in the trailer and the said trailer was uninsured with the appellant-insurance company. No person other than the driver of the tractor was covered under the insurance policy in question. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Company limited vs. N.Chandrashekhara and others reported in 1997 ACJ 512; United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shekarappa and others, reported at 2008 ACJ 243, Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. D.Laxman and others, reported at II 2007 ACC Kar DB.905, and National Insurance Company Limited vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and others, reported at I 2008 ACC 225 SC. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 13. He contends that the said aspect was not considered by the Commissioner and committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 14. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the insurance company- appellant. 15. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (WCC) has acted illegally and perversely in fastening liability on the appellant although the trailer in which the respondent no.1 was travelling at the time of the accident, was not insured with the appellant? (2) Whether the WCC has acted illegally and perversely in fastening liability on the appellant to indemnify the respondent no.2 in respect of the claim lodged by a coolie traveling in an uninsured trailor attached to a tractor insured with the appellant, although, the seating - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 capacity of the insured tractor being only one including the driver, no person other than driver of the said tractor was covered under the Insurance Policy? (3) Whether the WCC has erroneously held that the respondent no.1 was getting monthly wages of Rs.3,000/-, ignoring the material fact that the respondent no.1 had himself contended that he was getting wages of Rs.2,000/-p.m. and daily bhatta of Rs.20/-? Reg. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2: 16. These questions of law are interlinked and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 17. The only grievance raised by the insurance company is that the trailer was not insured with it and only the driver is entitled to a compensation in case of a tractor under the coverage policy. 18. It is undisputed that the trailer was being pulled, being attached to the tractor and the fact that the trailer on which the claimant/respondent No.1 was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 present, toppled down, resulting in the claimant sustaining the injuries. It is clear that, the tractor which was insured, was the cause of the accident. 19. It is not the case of the insurer that, only because of some fault on the part of the trailer, stationary standing alone or otherwise, the accident happened. If the trailer is stationary at a place, and due to some reason it overturns or a mishap happens, then, without the trailer being insured, the insurance company would not be liable to pay any compensation. But in the instant case, the main cause of the accident was the tractor, pulling the trailer and as a consequence of events, the trailer turtled. Thus, it is evident that the accident was caused by the tractor while it was being driven by the tractor. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of M/s. Royal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. v. Honnamma and others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1027. At paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. 12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.” (emphasis supplied) 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable would not be applicable, and held that the liability of the insurer of the tractor would extend to the accident caused to the trailer, resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 22. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Veerabhadrappa M.Kotagi vs. Uma W/o. Shankar and Another, in MFA No.21658 of 2013, disposed of on 12.02.2020, has been held at paragraphs 8 and 9, as follows: “8. Now coming to the main question involved in this case, the above said two points i.e., whether the Tribunal fastening the entire liability on the owner is in detail dealt with by this Court itself in a case in MFA.No.513/2007 (MV) A/W MISC.CIVIL No.101679/2011, the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 03.08.2011, discussed the above said legal aspects at paragraph No.11, which reads as follows: "11. It is well settled that it is the truck which can be driven by the driver and the trailer by itself is not a vehicle unless it is attached to the tractor and the averments made in the petition, it has to be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and when the tractor is insured as on the date of the accident, it is not open to the insurance company to contend that the second trailer was not insured as in this case, the claimants cannot be termed - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 as third parties, as the deceased was riding his motor cycle and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor which was admittedly insured as on the date of the accident and wherefore the finding of the Tribunal that since trailer was not insured, liability of the insurance company cannot be imposed, is perverse and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside." 9. In view of the above said observation made by this Court, it is clear that merely because the tractor was pulling a trailer which was not insured i.e., new trailer so far as third parties are concerned, the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability. Further in this particular case respondents have produced Ex.R.4 which is the driving licence at the driver of the offending tractor and he is permitted to drive the tractor with specific endorsement. The same principle is also applicable, when the tractor was supposed to pull a trailer and one of the trailers is insured and the driver is entitled to drive the tractor. There is no material placed before the Court that he had no valid driving licence at all to drive the tractor along with trailer. Therefore, when the licence was produced before the Court at Ex.R.4, the Tribunal has committed wrong in holding that the driver had no valid driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer, in that context also the Tribunal has committed a serious error in fastening the liability on the owner.” 23. The Division Bench held that merely because the tractor was pulling the trailer, which was not - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 insured, i.e., a new trailer so far as third parties are concerned, the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability. 24. The Division Bench referred to another Division Bench ruling in MFA No.513 of 2007 along with Miscellaneous Civil No.101679 of 2011 disposed on 03.08.2011, wherein the Division Bench held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor, which was, at the time accident, was insured, and therefore the finding of the Tribunal that since the trailer was not insured, the liability cannot be imposed on the insurance company, is perverse, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. 25. Admittedly, in the instant case, the accident occurred on account of rash negligent driving by the driver of the tractor, which was admittedly insured as of the date of the accident. Since the trailer was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 not insured as of the date of the accident, considering the proposition of law, laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Honnamma (supra), the insurance company-appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation amount. 26. In view of the above discussion, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned award, and I find no error in the impugned award. 27. In view of the above discussion, I answer Substantial question of Law Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Reg. Substantial question of law No.3: 28. Substantial Question of Law No.3 pertains to the quantum of compensation, which is not a substantial question of law, as such. Hence, it doesn’t arise for consideration and is answered accordingly. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9413 MFA No. 21101 of 2013 29. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is hereby confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RK CT: BSB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3