- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7787 OF 2022(MV-D) BETWEEN: SRI A D SUDHIR S/O LATE A K DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF KIRGOOR VILLAGE & POST VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU-571213. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAYAPRAKASH SHETTY B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI M B CHANDRU S/O M J BORA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDENT OF HONNIKOPPAL KIRGOOR VILLAGE & POST VIRAJPET TALUK SOUTH KODAGU PINCODE-571 213. 2. SMT. M.C LALITHA W/O M.B CHANDUR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS KIRGOOR VILLAGE & POST Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 VIRAJPET TALUK, VIA PONNAMPET, SOUTH KODAGU PINCODE-571 213. 3. THE MANAGER IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD NO.35, 1ST FLOOR NEAR AKSHAYA BANDAR NEW KANTHRAJ URAS ROAD KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE-570 023. 4. H V SUMANTHA S/O H.G VENKATESH @ GINI AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN C/O ALEMADA SUDHEER KIRGOOR VILLAGE AND POST PONNAMPET, KODAGU-571213. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R1, R2, R4, SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.01.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 126/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,55,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 9 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The insured preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.01.2019 passed in M.V.C.No.126/2016 passed by the II Additional District and Session Judge and M.A.C.T, Kodagu - Madikeri sitting at Virajpet (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded a compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- with 9% interest per annum. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased in this case one Praveena was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-12-T-7023 and a trailer bearing registration No.KA-12-T-7024 along with others towards Kirgoor village. The driver of the said tractor i.e., respondent No.4 herein driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the tractor was capsized and the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to JSS Hospital, Mysore, however, he succumbed to the injuries after two days. As such, the claimants i.e., the legal representatives of the deceased Praveena have filed claim petition before the Tribunal - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 claiming compensation for the accidental death of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. However, the Tribunal saddled the liability to the appellant - insured since the driver of the tractor i.e., respondent No.4 was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. Hence, the insured is before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3 - insurance company. Though the notices were served to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4, they remained unrepresented. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant - insured contended that the Tribunal erred while saddling the liability to the insured for the reason that the driver of the vehicle had not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. Further, he also contended that the Tribunal ought to have rejected the claim petition filed by the claimants, since the tractor and trailer is not a transport - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 vehicle. He also contended that since the tractor was used for the agricultural purpose, then the deceased is entitled to claim the compensation only under the Workmen Compensation Act not under the Motor Vehicles Act. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company contended that before the Tribunal it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the driver of the offending tractor and trailer was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability to the insured. Now that insured is before this Court, he cannot pray an order for pay and recovery. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.3 - insurance company so also perused the entire materials available on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, the accident was caused on 12.03.2016 when the deceased - Praveena was - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 travelling in the tractor and trailer along with others, at that time the accident was caused. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the hospital. Subsequently, the jurisdictional police registered the FIR against the driver of the tractor and trailer and thereafter, charge sheet was also laid against the driver of the tractor and trailer. In the charge sheet, it also depicts that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and trailer. Before the Tribunal, no adverse evidence adduced to disprove the evidence of PW.1 - claimant namely M.B.Chandru so also the investigation documents placed by the police including the charge sheet. 9. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tractor and trailer was not a transport vehicle, in such circumstances, the deceased was not supposed to travel in the tractor and trailer cannot be accepted for the reason that the appellant - insured remained absent before the Tribunal and has not taken such contention before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2016 ACJ 2762 and 2015 ACJ 2486, held that the insured being the owner of the offending - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 tractor and trailer is liable to pay the compensation for the reason that the accident was solely caused due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer and he was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident. Moreover, the driver of the tractor and trailer had breached the policy conditions and allowed the deceased and others to travel in the tractor and trailer by using the same for commercial purpose. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability against the insured. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insured that pay and recovery order has to be passed is also untenable for the reason that the insured cannot invoke the said rule since ultimately the liability on the insured to pay the compensation by reimbursing the same to the insurer. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to saddling of liability on the insured does not require any interference by this Court. 11. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has imposed 9% interest for the compensation which requires to be reduced to 6%. I find - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010527162022 NC: 2026:KHC:38996 MFA No. 7787 of 2022 substantial force in the said contention in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Ms. Joyeeta Bose and others vs. Venkateshan V., and others in M.F.A.No.5896/2018.Accordingly the interest is modified to 6% instead 9% for the compensation amount. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23