- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2823 OF 2017 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE TIPTUR, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, B.H.ROAD, TIPTUR TOWN, BY REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 5TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O.MAHESH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PARVATHAMMA AGE 46 YEARS, W/O KRISHNAIAH, 2. SIDDARAMAIAH AGE 28 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAIAH, BOTH ARE R/O, DUGADIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK - 572 214 Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 3. SMT.N. PADMA AGE 46 YEARS, W/O S.HORAKERAPPA, R/O THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK-572214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 SRI. PATEL D KAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED09.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1653/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & 9TH MACT, ITINERATE COURT, C.N.HALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,52,200/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 09.12.2016 passed in MVC No.1653 of 2014 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge and XIX MACT, Itinerate Court, Chikkanayakanahalli. One Krishnaiah @ Krishnappa, son of Siddaiah, met with an accident on 11.08.2014 and died subsequently. His wife and son filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.6,52,200/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. It was held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the amount. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company preferred this appeal and mainly contented that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) of the M.V. Act either by the insured or Section 158(6) of M.V. Act by both insured and Investigating Officer. It is contended that the petition was not maintainable for non joinder of parties i.e. driver and conductor as it was alleged that the driver of the bus and conductor allowed Krishnaiah to travel on the top of the bus. There was statutory obligation under Rule 235 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules to send notices to the owner, driver and conductor of the vehicles to prove the involvement of the accident and driver is an necessary party to decide the issue of negligence as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar Vs. D.S. Mylarappa and others reported in (2008 ACJ - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 p.1964). It is also contended that the contributory negligence of the deceased is also to be decided. The bus had no valid permit for the place called Kedigehalli, and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is contended that the Tribunal has taken the income of Krishnaiah as Rs.6,000/- per month without any evidence and added 15% future prospects. The appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another, wherein it was held that in the case where the deceased was a self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments, the actual income at the time of death is to be taken without adding future prospects. Thus, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for sides. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 11.08.2014, Krishnaiah went to C.N. Halli for purchase of the household articles and vegetables from market on that day at about 03.30 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 p.m. After purchasing the same, he boarded the Prakasha bus No.KA-06-A-4568 to reach their village Dugadihalli. The bus was loaded with passengers. Therefore, conductor instructed Krishnaiah to climb the top of the bus along with the goods. As such, he sat on the top of the bus. Conductor also received the amount. But, the driver of the bus driven it in a rash and negligent manner. He had taken the bus to the side of tamarind tree which is on the left side of the road and the branches of the said tree caused injuries to Krishnaiah, dragged him towards back from the top. As a result, he fell down from the top of the bus and sustained grievous injuries and died on the same day. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 was served. Respondent No.1-owner of the bus stated that he is having a policy which is in force as on the date of accident. She further stated that, on 11.08.2014, there was C.N. Halli Taluk Raitha Sangha called ‘band’ and blocked C.N. Halli main road. Therefore, to avoid inconvenience for the passengers who wanted to travel from C.N. Halli to Tiptur, the driver opted the alternative nearest road via Shettikere. Thus, the respondent never violated the conditions of permit. The accident did not - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 take place due to negligence of the conductor, but it was due to Krishnaiah, who without the permission of the conductor, sat on the top of the bus and without observing the roadside trees. The driver of the bus has valid driving licence and as such, insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.2-Insurance company stated that first respondent violated the permit terms and conditions under the Act and insurance policy and they are not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Exhibit R10 is the pamphlet regarding Farmers’ strike on the date of incident. Exhibit R2 and Exhibit R3 are endorsement of the renewal of permit. Exhibit R6 is renewal endorsement. Exhibit R7 is copy of replacement of endorsement. Exhibit R8 is route permit through copy. 6. The main contention of the insurance company is that there was violation of route permit. The bus was not travelled in the regular route and as there was change of route, they are not liable to pay compensation. 7. Admittedly, on the date of accidnet, there was farmers’ strike. As such, the driver of the bus had no other - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 option but to change the route to reach the destination and to take the passengers to the destination. The contention of the claimants is that, as there was heavy rush in the bus, the conductor himself instructed Krishnaiah to sit on the top of the bus. As such, Krishnaiah was dragged by the branches of the tamarind tree and fell down and thus, there is no negligence on his part. 8. Learned counsel for both sides relied upon several judgments. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 herein relied upon the judgment of S.N. Kenchanna Vs. Smt. Anitha and Others reported in ILR 2018 KAR 3921 in which it was held that the intention appears to be that where a transport vehicle is taken for the purpose of repair in deviation of the conditions of the permit, still such use of the vehicle to ferry to the place of repair was to be construed as a legitimate exemption from adherence to the condition of a permit. As such, there was deviation of the route and conditions of the permit. It was held that a distinction ought to be made between absence of permit and deviation from the terms of the permit. Absence of permit is a ground to avoid statutory liability under Section 149 of the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 Act. But deviation from the terms of the permit does not lead to the purview of Section 142A. When there is violation of permit under Section 86, they are liable for penalty under Section 192A and action can be initiated under Section 207(1) of the Act. As such, expression under Section 66(2)(p) of the Act is applicable. 9. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in MFA No.101342/2017 C/W MFA.NO.101341/2017, MFA.NO.101568/2017, MFA.NO.101569/2017 dated 6.6.2025, it is held as under: 12. Therefore, when the facts and circumstances are considered in this case, the offending vehicle in this case bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313, though having permit only from Shivamogga to Hangal, but has travelled beyond Hangal up to Haveri and while returning from Haveri, the accident was taken place. But this vehicle was used as a relief vehicle, since another bus bearing registration No.KA-14/A-7144 was breakdown, when it was moving on its permit enroutes. Therefore, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/A-1313 was used as a relief vehicle for the circumstances above discussed. Therefore, there is no fundamental breach proved so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, in this regard, has committed error. 14. Therefore, mere deviation of rules in the circumstances as above discussed is not - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 amounting to fundamental breach so as to exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the owner. Hence, the judgment and award insofar as fastening liability on the owner of bus is liable to be set aside and it is set-aside holding that the insurance company shall indemnify the owner of the bus by paying compensation to the claimants.” 10. The learned counsel also relied upon 2024 ACJ 2825 between M.R. Basavanthappa (deceased) through LRs Vs. Mallamma and others, in which it was held as under: “Whether plying of a vehicle outside the permitted zone amounts to fundamental statutory infraction absolving insurance company from liability-Held: no; insurance company is liable.” 11. Definition of permit under section 2(31) of the Act which defined Permit reads as under: “Permit means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle.” 12. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has relied upon the judgment of Partap Singh Vs. National - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 Insurance Co. Ltd., and others reported in 2015 ACJ 2754 in which it was held as under: “XXX deviation from route may give rise to other consequences but it would not amount to use of vehicle for a purpose other than for which permit was issued.” 13. The facts of each and every case differs. In this case, Krishnaiah, who was travelling on the top of the bus was dragged by the branches of tamarind tree and fell down. The main contention of the insurance company is that Krishnaiah was not allowed to sit on the top of the bus, whereas the claimants stated that as there was strike on that day and there was heavy load and as such, even the conductor permitted Krishnaiah to sit on the bus and he also collected the amount. But, it is for the conductor and driver of the bus to see that no person travels on the top of the bus, however, they allowed him to travel on that day. Therefore, now it cannot be said that insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 14. Another contention of the insurance company is that there is violation of the permit. But respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle gave a reason stating that, on that day, there was - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536192017 NC: 2026:KHC:43771 MFA No. 2823 of 2017 strike of Raitha Sangha. As such, they are compelled to take deviation from the route permit. Admittedly, it is a deviation of the route permit and not the case of ‘no permit’ as on the date of accident. Therefore, the said the objection of the insurance company cannot be accepted. 15. Of course, the Tribunal, considering the fact that Krishnaiah was travelling on the top of the bus, fixed the contributory negligence of 20% only on the deceased, and 80% only on the insurance company. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75