- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4735 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN: ZABIULLA S/O KHALEEL AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O ZAMIA MASJID MOHALLA OPP. ZAMIA MASJID, DEVIATION ROAD, CHAMRAJANAGARA …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL BASHEER S/O ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SUPER CHIKEN CENTRE KSRTC ROAD CHAMARAJANAGARA 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INS CO. LTD. GIRISH COMPLEX, I FLOOR, AGRAHARA STREET, CHAMARAJANAGARA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K SRIDHARA., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 6.3.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.337/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 TRACK COURT, KOLLEGAL, SITTING AT CHAMARAJANAGAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 24.07.2026 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 06.03.2013 passed by the Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kollegal, sitting at Chamarajanagar, in MVC No.337 of 2010. 2. The injured claimant with an accident on 02.11.2010 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- with interest. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit. It was stated that respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, he was directed to pay the amount, and respondent No.2-insurance company was exonerated from paying compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the claimant- petitioner preferred this appeal mainly contending that, in the complaint, it was clearly stated that the petitioner was a loader under respondent No.1 and while he was returning after unloading the goods, accident occurred. Therefore, he cannot be treated as gratuitous passenger. It is contended that respondent No.1 is examined himself as RW2 and he admitted that the petitioner was working under him as a loader, whereas respondent No.2-insurer examined its administrative officer as RW1 and therefore finding of the Tribunal regarding fixing up liability on the owner of the vehicle is not proper, and the amount granted by the Tribunal under other heads is meagre, and therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides. 5. The manner of accident shows that on 02.11.2010 at about 1:30 pm, the petitioner was travelling as a loader in Goods Auto bearing Registration No.KA-10-1890 for unloading - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 the goods. Alter unloading the goods, the petitioner was returning to Chamrajanagar. At that time, the driver of the said Goods Auto drove the same in rash and negligent manner and as a result, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken Chamrajanagar Government Hospital. After first aid, he was shifted to Vikram Hospital, Mysore, as an inpatient for a period of 15 days. 6. Respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their separate objections. Respondent No.1 contended that, the said Goods Auto was insured with Respondent No.2 and policy was in force on the date of the accident. The said vehicle also had a valid Certificate of Registration, Fitness Certificate and up to date tax paid to the concerned department. The Driver of the said vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Therefore, Respondent No.2 is liable the compensation to the petitioner and thus, requested to dismiss the Petition against him. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 7. Respondent No.2-insurance company stated that the petitioner was not at all travelling in the said Goods Auto as a loader or un-loader under Respondent No.1. On the other hand, he was working under one Fyroz Khan along with one Mudafeer Ahamed. At the time of accident, no goods were being carried. More over, petitioner was travelling in the said Goods Auto as a Gratuitous Passenger. Though the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner, since Respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the said policy. Respondent No.1 has not furnished the RC of the said vehicle. Therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the petition against respondent-insurance company. 8. Petitioner has not examined any other witness to show that he was travelling in the Goods Auto along with goods. Respondent No.1 is examined himself as R.W.2 and respondent No.2 examined its administrative officer as RW1. Statement of the Complainant-Mudafeer Ahamed was also filed. RW1 stated that petitioner was working under one Feroz Khan along with one Mudafeer Ahamed in his chicken centre. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 Mudafeer Ahamed, who gave complaint, stated the same. Petitioner himself produced the said copy of the complaint and it is self-explanatory. At the time of the accident, no goods were carried and he was travelling in the car as a gratuitous passenger. As per Exhibit P2-statement of Complainant- Mudafeer Ahamed, in respect of the said accident, it clearly goes to show that, himself, petitioner and another i.e. driver- Idayath, one Zafi had been to Talvadi to unload the chiken and when they were returning, the said accident was occurred.. It clearly shows that petitioner was working with Feroz Khan in the chicken centre. 9. Respondent No.1 is examined as RW2 and he stated that petitioner was working with him at the time of the accident. Petitioner has not examined Mudafeer Ahamed/complainant for the reasons best known to him. The Tribunal erred in holding that petitioner was travelling in the Goods Auto after unloading the chicken at Talwadi and met with an accident. He was not at all working under respondent No.1, i.e. owner of the goods auto and thus, he is a gratuitous - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 passenger. The Tribunal relied upon several citations and dismissed the application. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others decided in Civil Appeal No.9538 of 2025 dated 17.07.2025, in which, it was held as under: “15. The above position has been followed by this Court in Anu Bhanvara v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein the injured person was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and was not covered under the Insurance Policy, the driver and owner of the vehicle was held liable for payment of compensation amount. This Court applied the principle of “Pay and Recover” and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.” And, accordingly, requested for pay and recovery. 11. The learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager, Bhanwar Lal Mufatlal Company, National Highway No.15, Near Sindhari Chauraha, Barmer Vs. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 Jethmal Singh S/o Kishan Singh and Others decided in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2811 of 2019 and connected matters dated 01.10.2024, in which it was held as follows: “23. This Court finds that a person who has been hired to unload goods at a certain place, would reasonably accompany the driver on the way back after unloading the goods at the respective place and it is apparent that while coming back, they would not have the goods with them, however, he will continue to remain an authorized representative of the goods for the journey back, provided that the person so authorized for the loading and unloading of goods, comes back to same place, from where he was hired to discharge the said duties.” 12. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ranga Naik Vs. The United India Insurance Company Limited and Another decided in SLP (C) Nos.12499-12500 of 2021 dated 08.04.2026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “13. XXX. The High Court rightly upheld the award of the MACT to the extent it absolved the insurer. It was also correct in not ordering the insurer to pay the awarded compensation to the appellant and recover it from the owner of the offending lorry. This was not a case of - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 per se breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured but a case where the liability of the insurer was not attracted because of the extent of coverage provided in the policy, i.e., it covered none other than the owner and the driver and, therefore, the liability was limited.” 13. The main contention of the petitioner is that he was returning in the Goods Auto after unloading the goods and he is not a gratuitous passenger, whereas learned counsel for respondent-insurance company has stated that petitioner was not working with respondent No.1 and he was working with somebody else, i.e. One Feroz Khan, as per the complaint, but he has not examined the complainant. 14. Admittedly, the petitioner has handed over the goods of Feroz Khan and while returning from that place along with complainant and others, met with an accident and sustained injuries. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was a gratuitous passenger. As he was returning after unloading of the goods, naturally, there will not be goods at the time of the accident. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to invoke the principle - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 of pay and recovery, and accordingly, the respondent-insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 15. Petitioner sustained fracture of ribs 6th to 10th left side with haemo-pneumothorax with left lung contusion, fracture superior and inferior pubic rami, fracture medial column of acctabulum on right side, fracture inferior public rami, sacrum on the left side and urethral injury as per exhibits P5 and P11, he has not examined the doctor. Petitioner filed Exhibit P5 wound certificate and Exhibit P11 discharge summary and also prescriptions. 16. Tribunal observed as per the evidence of doctor, the petitioner sustained 25% disability to the whole body. Even the disability certificate is not produced before the Tribunal. On what basis, the Tribunal arrived to the conclusion regarding disability, is not explained and the said disability cannot be considered. 17. It is stated that the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses and the said amount is confirmed. Further, this Court also finds it reasonable to - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/- for transportation and extra nourishment. The amount of Rs.50,000/- towards Permanent disability cannot be granted. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as against Rs.4,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. The award of compensation passed by the Tribunal is modified as under: Heads Amount in Rs. 1. Medical expenses 3,50,000/- 3. Pain and Suffering 25,000/- 4. Loss of amenities 25,000/- 5. Transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges 15,000/- Total 4,15,000/- 18. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010540392013 NC: 2026:KHC:42966 MFA No. 4735 of 2013 (ii) The Claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.4,15,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. (iii) The respondent-Insurance Company might have deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. Therefore, respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation within one month from the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with the interest accrued on it. (v) The respondent-insurance company is at liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71