- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103277 OF 2014 (MV-D) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100004 OF 2024 IN MFA NO. 103277 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, UMAMAHESHWARAO BUILDING, STATION ROAD, HOSPET-583201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O GULAPPA ANGADI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KATAPUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. SANGAPPA S/O GULAPPA ANGADI AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KATAPUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. 3. NETRAVATI D/O GULAPPA ANGADI AGE: 13 YEARS, R/O: KATAPUR, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL (RESP.NO.3 BEING MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1. 4. SHARANAPPA S/O IRAPPA KOLLI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR, R/O: PURATAGERA, TQ: KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADV FOR R1 TO R3, NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED) MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.02 11:02:54 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.09.2014, PASSED IN MVC NO.554/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, YELBURGA, SITTING AT KUSHTAGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,49,000/- ALONG WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100004 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MAHADEVI W/O GULAPPA ANGADI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KATAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL- 583231. 2. SANGAPPA S/O GULAPPA ANGADI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRI, R/O. KATAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL- 583231. 3. NETRAVATI D/O GULAPPA ANGADI AFTER MARRIAGE HER HUSBAND SURESH ANGADI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KATAPUR, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL NOW AT R/O. 434, JELLIGERI-KADAKOL, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582120. …CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADV) AND: 1. SHARANAPPA S/O IRAPPA KOLLI AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER CUM, OWNER OF TRACTOR NO. KA-36/T-9237, R/O. PURATAGERA, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL -583231. 2. SUMMONS THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HOSPET 583201, POLICY NO. 2418/31/11/102/00002811 VALID OF POLCY PERIOD 16.12.2011 TO 15-12-2012, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 POLICY ISSUING OFFICE: BRANCH OFICE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DR. K.G. KULAKARNI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, DR. SIMPI - LINGANNA ROAD, KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH V. KUSUGAL, ADV FOR R1, SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV FOR R2) THI MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.103277/2014 IS FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO. 554/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, YELBURGA, SITTING AT KUSHTAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTOR APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) Appeal in M.F.A.No.103277/2014 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability and the claimants have filed the Cross Objection in M.F.A.Crob.No.100004/2024 against the judgment and award dated 05.09.2014 in M.V.C.No.554/2012 passed by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Yelburga, sitting at Kushtagi. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of the appeal, and cross objection are as follows: On 13.01.2012, one Gulappa S/o. Sangappa Angadi was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-36/T- 9237 which was attached to a trailer bearing registration No.CTW-5893. The said tractor was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the coolie labourers who were traveling in the trailer, and the deceased Gulappa fell down from the tractor, and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately Gulappa was shifted to the Government Hospital, Hunagund, however, he succumbed to the injuries. It is contended that the deceased Gulappa was working as a coolie. As of the date of accident, the deceased was aged 40 years old, and used to earn Rs.9,000/- p.m. He was contributing the entire income to the maintenance of his family and because of his demise, the claimants being his widow, and children - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 have lost their only bread earning member. Hence, they filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of the death of Gulappa. 3. Respondent No.1-the owner of the tractor and trailer filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and contended that as of the date of accident, the tractor was insured with the insurance company and the insurance policy was in force as of the date of the accident. It is also contended that the driver of the tractor was possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor and trailer. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent No.1/ the owner. 4. Respondent No.2- the insruance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 date of the accident. It is also contended that the deceased Gulappa was travelling in the tractor as an unauthorized passenger, and there was a breach of police conditions. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the claimant. Accordingly, pray to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The claimants to substantiate their case, claimant No.1 was examined as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2, and marked 7 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-7. Conversely, Respondent No.1 was examined as RW-3 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R-3, and R-4. The official of the insurance company was examined as RW-1, examined one witness as RW-2 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 05.09.2014 and held that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,49,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of its realisation and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with interest within one month from the date of the judgment. The insurance company, challenging the liability, filed an appeal in M.F.A.No.103277/2014, and the claimants being, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed the cross objection in M.F.A. Crob.No.100004/2024. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the claimants. 9. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the deceased Gulappa was travelling in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 tractor as gratuitous passenger, and there was a breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. He further, submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company, and dismiss the cross objection filed by the claimants. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the cross objectors / claimants submits that the deceased Gulappa was working as coolie, and he was travelling in the tractor as coolie. He submits that the owner-cum-driver driver of the offending vehicle drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle. As a result, the tractor jerked and Gulappa fell down on the road, and sustained fatal injuries. He further submits that, in case this Court concludes that the deceased Gulappa was a gratuitous passenger, the insurance company may be directed to pay the compensation at the first instance, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 and recover the same from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the cross objection filed by the claimants, and dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability, and the quantum of compensation. Regarding liability: 13. There is no dispute that the deceased Gulappa sustained fatal injuries in the road traffic accident and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants to substantiate their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1. she reiterated the claim averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, produced a charge sheet at Ex.P-6 which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver. 14. The Insurance Company has contended that the deceased Gulappa was travelling in the tractor as gratuitous passenger, and not as coolie for harvesting purpose. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the insurance company, and the liability of the insurance company for the risk of coolie. Perused Ex.R-1 i.e., insurance policy, which discloses that the owner of the vehicle has paid the additional premium of Rs.25/- which covers the risk of employees as per the endorsement. Admittedly, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW-3, and he denied that Gulappa was not his employee, and admitted that Gulappa was his employee and he was working as coolie. The above provision of policy with schedule for premium and - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 endorsement makes it clear that, the insurance company has undertaken the legal liability for the risk of the coolies employed by him in connection with loading or unloading the vehicle arising in the course of its use. Therefore, it is difficult to agree the contention of the learned counsel for insurance company that risk of the coolie has not been covered under the policy. Considering Ex.R-1, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally on the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, I do not find any error in fastening the liability on the insurance company, and the owner of the vehicle. Regarding quantum of compensation: 15. The claimants have contended that the deceased Gulappa was earning Rs.9,000/- p.m. and to substantiate their case, the claimants have not produced the income proof. In the absence of proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed as per the chart issued - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident is of 2012. The notional income is to be assessed at Rs.6,500/- p.m. As the deceased was aged about 40 years, 25% of future prospects is to be added in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1. There are 3 dependants of the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd has to be deducted from the income of the deceased. The applicable multiplier to the age group of the deceased is 15. Thus, the loss of dependency is worked out as under: Rs.6,500 + Rs.1,625/-(25% of Rs.6,500/-) = Rs.8,125/- Rs.8,125-2,708 (1/3rd of Rs.8,125/-) = 5,417/- Rs.5,417 x 12 x 15 = 9,75,060/- 16. Thus, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,75,060/- towards loss of dependency. There are 3 claimants. Each claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.48,000/- as loss of 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 consortium (Rs.48,000 x 3 = Rs.1,44,000/-). In addition to it, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.36,000/- under the head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the Petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,55,060/- as against Rs.6,49,000/- and enhanced compensation of Rs.5,06,060/-. 17. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) M.F.A.No.103277/2014 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. (ii) Cross-objection in M.F.A.Crob. No.100004/2024 filed by the Petitioners is allowed in part. (iii) The judgment and award dated 05.09.2014 in M.V.C.No.554/2012 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Yelburga sitting at Kushtagi is modified. (iv) The Petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,06,060/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10511 MFA No. 103277 of 2014 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100004 of 2024 petition till the date of realisation of the amount. The Petitioners, are not entitled for interest for 2171 days being the delay in filing the cross objection. (v) The owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable pay the compensation to the cross-objectors/ Petitioners. (vi) The Insurance Company is directed deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. (vii) The amount in deposit and trial Court records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8