- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261882014 NC: 2026:KHC:36319 MFA No. 4261 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4261 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1872, 20TH MAIN, 20TH CROSS, MARENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 40. BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 027 BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KUMAR AGE 19 YEARS, S/O CHINNARAJ, RESIDING AT MAHANTHLINGAPURA BALARA BANDE, JIGANI HOBLI, BANGALORE - 560 025. 2. SRI. NAGARAJ, MAJOR, S/O HALUMIROJAPPA, MAHALINGAPURA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261882014 NC: 2026:KHC:36319 MFA No. 4261 of 2014 KALABALU, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 025. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2024, R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.8112/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BANGALORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,11,400 WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL PAYMENT THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 04.04.2014 passed in MVC No.8112/2011 on the file of the IX Additional Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT- 7, Bangalore. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261882014 NC: 2026:KHC:36319 MFA No. 4261 of 2014 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner/injured was a minor aged 16 years, met with an accident on 19.10.2011 and his father as a natural guardian filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.1,11,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd., preferred this appeal and mainly contended that there was a delay of three days in filing the complaint. In the wound certificate, it was simply mentioned that injuries are due to alleged R.T.A., and neither type of vehicle nor its registration number was mentioned. PW.1-father of the injured stated that he had gone to his native place to arrange finance for treatment of his minor son. As such, he could not lodge the complaint immediately and lodged it only after three days. Ex.P.2-complaint was given by one - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261882014 NC: 2026:KHC:36319 MFA No. 4261 of 2014 Mr.S. Raja, not by the father of the minor child and he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It is stated that one Mr. Ravi, was traveling with injured-minor and he was not examined before the Tribunal. The Court has no information on whether Ravi sustained any injuries or not. Admittedly, the petitioner is a minor aged 16 years. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was employed in any capacity. The injured-minor was travelling as an unauthorized person in the insured tractor and trailor. As such, the risk is not covered by the insurance policy and the tractor and trailer is a non transport vehicle as per R.C. and it was carrying iron rods (not agricultural implements as per I.M.T 48 issued), which was not used for agricultural purpose. The injured-minor alleged to be coolie was not covered even otherwise. Even PW.1 has not stated anywhere that his son was employed under the insured and Ravi was owner of the said tractor. This clearly shows that the vehicle was falsely implicated only to fasten liability against the insurance company. The mahazar and I.M.V reports are also prepared only to help the claim of the injured. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261882014 NC: 2026:KHC:36319 MFA No. 4261 of 2014 5. In spite of service of notice, respondents did not turned up. 6. A perusal of the record shows that the complaint is given after three days and the reason stated by father of the injured-minor is not convincing. One Ravi, who was travelling in the tractor and trailer along with the minor child, was not examined. The Insurance Company mainly contended that he is an unauthorized passenger and as such, the risk is not covered under the insurance policy. The tractor and trailer is a non transport vehicle and it is not used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company is exonerated from paying the compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) As the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,11,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, the owner of the vehicle is directed to pay - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261882014 NC: 2026:KHC:36319 MFA No. 4261 of 2014 the said amount, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) On such deposit, the father of the injured/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. (iv) The amount, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the MACT for refund. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28