- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 652 OF 2024 (MV-D) BETWEEN: REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., LEGAL OFFICE, NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V ARCADE, BILEKEL MAIN ROAD, OFF., TO BANNERAGHATTA ROAD, 2ND MB POST, BANGALORE-76 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SEEMA W/O LATE BITTU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 2. KUM. MUSKAN SINGH D/O LATE BITTU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 3. KUM. SHIBU SINGH D/O LATE BITTU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 4. MAS. PIYUSH SINGH S/O LATE BITTU SINGH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, (SINCE THE RESPONDENTS NO. 4 & 4 ARE MINORS REPTD. BY THEIR MOTHER/1ST RESPONDENT) ALL ARE RESIDENT OF # A-38/81, B-D-N, VIJAYAIPURA VILLAGE, VARANASI DISTRICT, KONIYA POST, UTTAR PRADESH STATE-221 007 5. MR RAJESH B.R S/O RAGHUNATHA B T, NO.80/5, KODIGEHALLI, CHIKKA KODIGEHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560 091 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T. MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R4, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26/09/2024, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.11.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.2307/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU (SCCH-7), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 32,14,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TO TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSITING OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE COURT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 02.11.2023 passed in MVC No.2307/2021 by the IX ASCJ., Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-7), (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants by awarding compensation for a sum of Rs.32,14,000/- along with 6% interest per annum. 2. The facts apposite for consideration, as borne out from the pleadings and records, are that on 19.03.2021, at about 6:10 p.m., one Bittu Singh (since deceased), who was working as a coolie (loader-cum-unloader), was travelling in a Mini Goods Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-22/C-4052. When the said tempo reached near Unitech Gate, Bengaluru, its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tempo toppled. Consequently, Bittu Singh sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment; however, despite medical intervention, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 Thereafter, an FIR came to be registered against the driver of the tempo, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him. Subsequently, the legal representatives of the deceased Bittu Singh instituted a claim petition seeking compensation from the driver and the insurer of the offending tempo. 3. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to make good the compensation. Challenge to the same is lis before this court. 4. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. K.T. Madhu, for the respondent. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company, inasmuch as the policy did not cover any person other than those contemplated under the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was submitted that the deceased - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 was not an employee whose risk was covered under the policy of insurance and that he was travelling in the body of the goods vehicle. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the risk of the deceased was not required to be covered under the policy. 6. The learned counsel further contended that, even assuming that the deceased was an employee, the liability of the insurer would, at best, be restricted to that arising under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Placing reliance on the evidence of RW.1, the official of the Insurance Company, and Ex.R3, namely the statement of the accused, he submitted that the Tribunal had misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and, consequently, erroneously fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. It was also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment and award, contended that the Tribunal, upon a proper appreciation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has passed a well-reasoned judgment and award, which does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaminiben and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Company and Others, reported in 2026 ACJ 447 contended that, in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court, keeping in view the benevolent object and purpose underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, held that the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle would be liable to satisfy the award even where the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal was fully justified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. We have given anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the judgment and award and the documents placed before us. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 10. The only point that would arise for our consideration is: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in partly allowing the claim petition by fixing liability on the Insurance Company?" 11. As could be gathered from records, in the instant case, the occurrence of the accident in question and the existence of a valid insurance policy covering the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident are not in dispute. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a coolie for the purpose of unloading granite stones being transported therein. Thus, it is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 12. The contention of the Insurance Company that the policy does not cover the risk of the deceased and the coverage is restricted only to the categories of persons contemplated under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 in Kaminiben and Others supra, while dealing with a similar factual situation and keeping in view the benevolent object and social welfare purpose underlying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, has held that the insurer would be liable to satisfy the award even in cases where the deceased/injured was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 13. In this regard, it is profitable to refer paragraph No.10 of the said judgment, which reads as under: "10. In the present case, the deceased was travelling in the subject tempo along with a Ganesh idol, which was being taken for immersion in the Narmada River. Thus, the dominant purpose for hiring the vehicle was not for travelling but for carrying the Ganesh idol for immersion. Travelling in the vehicle was only incidental; therefore, at best, the deceased can be treated as a gratuitous passenger travelling with his goods (Ganesh idol). This being the circumstance, we rely on the judgment in the matter of Manuara Khatun & Ors., wherein this Court has held thus in paragraph Nos.15 and 16: “15. This question also fell for consideration recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, wherein this Court took note of the entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 filed by the insurance company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in the offending vehicle as a ‘gratuitous passenger’, the insurance company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court, keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued directions against the insurance company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of ‘pay and recover’.” emphasis supplied 14. Applying the aforesaid law laid down in the above- referred judgment to the case on hand, we are of the considered view that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the deceased was travelling in the offending tempo for the purpose of unloading the goods being transported therein and, therefore, was a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle. In such circumstances, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, keeping in view the benevolent object of the Motor Vehicles Act and other relevant factors, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27774-DB MFA No. 652 of 2024 compensation and thereafter, shall recover the said sum from the insured and this aspect of the matter has rightly been appreciated by the Tribunal, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Thus, we answer the point raised above in the affirmative. Accordingly, the MFA is disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV/V List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34