- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 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. 23394 OF 2012 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23393 OF 2012 IN MFA NO. 23394 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. RAJASHEKAR S/O. MUPPANNA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. S.S. ROAD, SHIRALKOPPA TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGGA. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. R.K. HATTI & K.H. BAGI, ADVS) AND: 1. SRI. DEVARAJ S/O. KARABASAPPA KATENAHALLI , AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLI, R/O. TALAGUND, TQ: HANAGAL, NOW AT HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI-580029. 3. SRI. GURUSWAMY S/O VEERAYYA MATHAD AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. S.S. ROAD, SHIRALKOPPA, TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV FOR R1, SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29.03.2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.14/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & AMACT., HANGAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.7,360/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:23:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 IN MFA NO. 23393 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M. RAJASHEKAR S/O. MUPPANNA AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. S.S. ROAD, SHIRALKOPPA TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGGA. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. R.K. HATTI & K.H BAGI, ADVS) AND: 1. SRI. NEHARU S/O. CHANNABASAPPA BASAVANANDIHALLI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLI, R/O. TALAGUND, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNIETD INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI-580029. 3. SRI. GURUSWAMY S/O VEERAYYA MATHAD AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER R/O. S.S. ROAD, SHIRALKOPPA TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIMOGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV FOR R1, SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:29/03/2011, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.13/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HANGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.78,255/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) These two appeals are filed by the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-15/1260 challenging the common judgment passed in MVCs No.13/2008 and 14/2008 vide judgment and award dated 29.03.2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. AMACT, Hangal (‘the Tribunal’ for short). 2. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment; therefore, they are tagged together, and taken for a common decision to avoid the repetition of facts. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows: 3.1. On 27.04.2007 at about 05:30 p.m., the petitioners were travelling in a Swaraj Mazada canter lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-15/1260. At that time, the driver of the canter drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-14/A-2299, the driver - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 of which, also the drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the petitioners in both the petitions sustained grievous injuries. They incurred a huge medical expenses, and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,40,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/- respectively. 4. The owners and drivers of both the vehicles remained unrepresented before the tribunal, despite the service of a notice and they were placed ex-parte. 5. The Insurance Company of the canter- United India Insurance Company Ltd. (‘UIICL’ for short) filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the petitioners were travelling as an unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle which is against the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. It is contended that, the drivers of both the vehicles did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, UIICL is not liable to pay the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 compensation as claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition. 6. The Insurance company of the Bus- New India Assurance Company Ltd. (‘NIACL’ for short) filed a statement of objections admitting that the bus bearing Reg.No.KA-14/A-2299 was insured with them under a policy and except admitting the policy, has denied the rest of the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the liability of this insurance company is subject to the driving holding a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against them. 7. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed separate issues. 8. The petitioners in MVCs No.13/2008 and 14/2008, to substantiate their case, examined themselves as PWs-1 and 2 , examined the Doctor as PW-3 and marked seventeen documents as Exs.P1 to P17. Respondent No.3- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 UICL- Insurance company examined its Officer as RW-1 and marked three documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Officials of respondent No.6-NIACL have not led any evidence. 9. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part vide common judgement dated 29.03.2011 and awarded a compensation of Rs.78,225/- in MVC No.13/2008 and Rs.7,360/- in MVC No.14/2008 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition, till the amount is deposited in the court and held that, the owner and driver of the canter are liable to pay the compensation amount to an extent of 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and 50% by the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the bus i.e., respondent No.4 to 6-NIACL. 10. The owner of the canter, being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and award, filed these appeals ,challenging the liability. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner of the canter, and the learned counsel for the Insurance company-UIICL. 12. Learned counsel for the owner of the canter submits that, the policy covered a Coolie. He submits that, the petitioners were travelling in the vehicle as Coolies and the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening 50% liability on the owner. He submits that, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on the Insurance Company of the canter i.e., UIICL; on the contrary, has fastened the liability to the extent of 50% on the owner of the canter. Hence, on thess grounds, he prays to allow the appeals. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance company- UIICL submits that, the Insurance Company has collected a premium only regarding owner-cum-driver and not regarding the Coolies, and the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition against them. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeals. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 15. Admittedly, the petitioners met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the drivers of the bus and the canter. Insofar as liability is concerned, the Tribunal considering the policy produced by the Insurance company- UIICL which discloses that, the risk covers only the owner and driver, and not the Coolies, fastened the liability on the owner of the canter. Admittedly, the petitioners were working as Coolies under the owner of the canter. There is no liability on the UIICL to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The owner and driver of the canter are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners to the extent of 50% out of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in recording its finding that, no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of coolie or hamali other than WC to employee (2 no’s) in EX R-2, the Coolies were not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10951 MFA No. 23394 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 23393 of 2012 covered under the policy as per Ex.R2 i.e., insurance policy produced by the UIICL, and has rightly fastened the liability on the owner and driver of the canter. I do not find any error in the impugned common judgment. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeals are dismissed. The Impugned common judgement and award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4