- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20240 OF 2012 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBLI REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SMT. RENUKA Y. RANEBENNUR. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O. SANNAKARIYAPPA KADEMMANAVAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. NAGENDRAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA DODDAMANE, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI (OWNER OF TRACTOR/TRAILER – KA-27/T-5573 & KA-27/T-5993) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH L. HEGDE, ADV FOR SRI. M.H PATIL, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE W.C.ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.03.2011, PASSED IN WCA/NF NO.230/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,72,998/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH 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: 2025.09.10 12:27:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, under Section 30 (1) of the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter the Act), challenging the award passed in WCA/NF/230/2009 dated 17.03.2011 by the learned Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haveri (for short ‘the Commissioner’). 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as follows: On 20.02.2009, the petitioner, while driving a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-27/T-5573 and 5993, belonged to the employer, met with an accident, during the course of his employment and out of employment. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that the tractor and the trailer were being used for agricultural purposes and for carrying an electrical pole, which is to be installed in the land belonged - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 to the owner of the tractor and the trailer. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Act. 3. The owner of the vehicle filed a statement of objections admitting the relationship of employer and employee between him and the petitioner, occurrence of accident during the course of employment and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is further contended that the tractor and trailer are insured with the insurance company as of the date of accident and the owner is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him. 4. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections contending that the vehicle was used for commercial purposes, namely, transporting electrical poles and wires, and that the claimant was traveling in the tractor as an unauthorized passenger at the time of the accident, which does not constitute an agricultural activity. Hence, there was a breach of policy conditions. The Insurance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the workman i.e. the claimant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and also examined the Doctor as PW-2 and got marked nine documents as Ex.P1 to P9. The Insurance Company examined its officer as RW-1 and marked two documents as Ex.R1 and R2. 7. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.1,72,998/- and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest. 8. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the claimant. 10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the tractor and trailer were being used for commercial purposes for transporting the electrical poles and wires, and the petitioner was traveling as an unauthorized passenger at that time of the accident. The activity being carried out by the owner of the tractor was commercial and not for agricultural purposes. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. She further submits that the Commissioner has perversely assessed the loss of earning capacity at 35% on the basis of the false deposition of PW-2. She submits that the Commissioner ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company, but on the contrary, has allowed the claim petition, which has resulted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 in miscarriage of justice. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the appeal. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tractor and the trailer was used for agricultural purposes, and for carrying electrical poles, wires and etc. to install electric pole in the land of the owner of the vehicle. He submits that the accident was occurred during employment and that the owner had not used the offending vehicle for non-agricultural purposes. He further submits that the Commissioner has rightly held the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records and considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. This Court, vide order dated 28.08.2017, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 “Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is legally justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company, when the facts disclose that the tractor was being used for non agricultural purpose?” 14. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The only defense taken by the Insurance Company is that the tractor and the trailer in question were used for non- agricultural purposes. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 15. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Rule 100(6) and the 226 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, which read as follows: “Rule - 100(6): No person other than an attendant or attendants required by Rule 226 shall be carried on a trailer which is a goods vehicle.” Rule 226:Attendants on trailers:-(1) Where a trailer is or being drawn by a motor vehicle, there shall be carriage in the trailer or trailers or on the drawing motor vehicle, as the case may be, the following persons, not being less - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 than twenty years of age and competent to discharge their duties, that is to say,- (a) if the brakes of the trailer cannot be operated by the driver of the drawing motor vehicle or by some other person carried on that vehicle.- (i) one person on every trailer competent to apply the brakes; and (ii) one person placed at or near the rear of the last trailer in train in such a position as to be able to have a clear view of the road in rear of the trailer to signal to the drivers of overtaking vehicles and to communicate with the driver drawing motor vehicle; (b) if the brakes of the trailer can be operated by the driver of the motor vehicle or by some person carried on that vehicle such other person in addition to the driver shall be carried on that vehicle and one person in addition to the driver shall be carried on that vehicle and one person on the last trailer in train in accordance with the provisions of sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (a); (c) If the trailer is or trailers are being drawn by tractor the un-laden weight of which exceeds 7,250 kilograms, notwithstanding that the brakes of the trailer or trailers can be operated by the driver or some other person on the tractor not less than one person on each trailer and not less than two persons on the last trailer in train one of whom shall be the person required by the provisions of sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (a).” 16. Reading of the Rules referred to above, an attendant is required to be carried on in a trailer for different purpose other than agricultural purpose i.e. for the application of break to signal to the drivers of overtaking vehicles, if the trailer is the last one in the train of trailers. He is permitted to be carried as per Rule 226(1) of the Rules. Rule 226(2) is an expectation to Rule 226(1). In the other words, the reading of Rule 100(6) along with Rule- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 226(d) carrying an attendant for the purpose of application of breaks of the trailer is necessary in vehicles other than the agriculture trailer (to be attached to tractor) and other vehicles shown in Rule 226(2). Certainly tractor-trailer used for agriculture purpose are not the ones referred to under Rule 226(1). Therefore the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that, Rule 100(6) read with Rule 226 of the Rules are applicable to the facts of the present case, falls to ground. 16. Further, the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sri. Maruthi and others1, held as follows: “The combination of the tractor-trailer is nothing short of a goods carriage. Therefore, when once it is held as goods carriage vehicle, by virtue of Section—II-1(1) of fully worded policy and also provisions of Section 147, the claim of the claimants on hand is covered. The claimants in the present case have rightly approached the Workmen’s Commissioner and the Commissioner was justified in holding that the injured claimants were coolies under the owner viz., the insured. In the preset case, they were carrying stones for constructing a ridge in the land belonging to the insured so as to store the water. This is nothing but a part and parcel of the agricultural operations. The claimants were the neither gratuitous passengers nor persons who were traveling in the tractor- trailer for the purpose other than agricultural operations. Looking to the avocation of the claimants, the computation of the compensation by the Commissioner is just and proper.” 1 ILR 2011 KAR 4139 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 17. Admittedly, in the instant case, the tractor and the trailer were used for the agricultural operations, as they were carrying electricity poles and wires for erecting the electric poles in the land of the owner of the tractor. The claimant was not traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor and trailer; he was traveling as a driver, who was driving the tractor. The activity carried out by the driver was for agricultural purposes and not for commercial purposes, as contended by the Insurance Company. The Commissioner has rightly held that the vehicle was used for agricultural purposes and not for non-agricultural purposes or commercial purposes and has rightly allowed the claim petition. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment and award passed by the Commissioner. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11124 MFA No. 20240 of 2012 ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The Judgment and award dated 17.03.2011 in WCA/NF/230/2009 passed by the learned the Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haveri, is confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, and trial Court Records, be transmitted to the Commissioner forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1