- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8612 OF 2016 (MV- D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2297 OF 2017 (MV- D) IN MFA No. 8612/2016: BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BOPANNA B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHA S/O LATE GADDEPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. VAJALAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHA, Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT PAIDODDI, LINGASUGUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584101. 3. HONNAIAH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, #6/1, KITCHANAHALLI DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 26.10.2017 NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY REDUCE THE COMPENSATION AS PASSED IN THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.7.2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NELAMANGALA, IN M.V.C NO.28/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN MFA NO. 2297/2017: BETWEEN: 1. HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHA, S/O LATE GADDEPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. VAJALAMMA W/O HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT PAIDODDI LINGASUGUR TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584122 ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA B, ADVOCATE) AND: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 1. HONNAIAH S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, NO.61/1, KITHANAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562123 (OWNER OF VEHICLE MAHINDRA 475-D TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING REGISTRATION NO KA-07-TA-0832-AND NO KA-07-TA-0833) 2. THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, NO.28, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, CONTENARY BUILDING M. G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 26.10.2017 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT NELAMANGALA IN MVC NO.28/2014 AND AWARD JUDGE AND REASONABLE COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANTS HEREIN BY ALLOWING THEIR CLAIM PETITION AS PRAYED FOR AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS THAT THIS HON’S COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.08.2026 AND COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 CAV JUDGMENT MFA No.8612/2016 is filed by the appellant/Insurance company to reduce the compensation and MFA No.2297/2017 is filed by the appellant/petitioners to enhance the compensation, under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 17.07.2016 passed in MVC No.28/2014 on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Nelamangala to reduce the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Mounesh was traveling on a tractor and trailer and met with an accident on 19.11.2013 and his parents filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.11,38,000/- with - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of petition till deposit and held that respondent No.1/owner and respondent No.2/Insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the amount. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance company preferred appeal in MFA No.8612/2016 and mainly contended that Mounesh was travelling on a tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-07-TA-832 and KA-07-TA-833 by carrying bricks as a labour to construct the farm house from Kithanahalli towards Harthipalya and when they reached near Avverahalli cross, the driver of the tractor driven it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and suddenly applied brakes, as a result, it turned turtle and Mounesh, who was sitting on the bricks, fell down and died on the spot. 5. It is stated that the tractor was registered as miscellaneous and special type of vehicle for agricultural - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 purpose. As per the complaint and FIR, it was used for commercial purpose to transport bricks manufactured at K.P.Gangadharappa, hallow bricks factory and deceased was an unauthorised passenger, but Tribunal erred in fastening liability against the company. The deceased was sitting on the load of bricks carelessly as an unauthroised passenger and there is gross violation of policy conditions. The driver of the tractor is not having valid and effective driving license and he is not authorized to drive the insured vehicle as on the date of accident and it is in clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The deceased Mounesh was a bachelor. The Tribunal instead of deducting 50% towards personal expenses had deducted 1/3rd and thus requested the court to modify the order. 6. It was held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the tractor and trailer and a case was registered in Crime No.699/2030 is filed against him and notices were served to the respondent. Respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied all the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 material allegations and stated that the first respondent is the owner and his vehicle is insured with second respondent and relied upon a citation reported in MFA No.6959/2003 c/w 6960/2003 dated 15.02.2007, in which it was held that, if the vegetables were carried in a tractor for transporting to the market for sale, such use of vehicle cannot be termed as use of the tractor for agriculture purpose and it was held that the vehicle was not used for agriculture purpose. They also relied upon MFA Crob.No.100001/2016 in case of Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga Vs K.Guleppa K.Lingappa. The driver of the tractor is not permitted to carry or allow any person on a tractor including on its mudguard. They relied upon citation reported in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2239, 2240 & 2241 of 2012 dated 08.02.2021 in case of the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Malliga Manonmani Thilliakannu and Anr., in which it was held that the tractors specifically meant for agricultural purposes cannot - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 be used for carrying passengers as transport vehicle. Therefore, under Section 147 of the MV Act, the Insurance Company is not statutorily required to cover the liability in respect of passengers in a goods vehicle, unless such passenger is the owner or agent of the owner of the goods accompanying such goods in the concerned goods vehicle. In this case, owner of the vehicle has not admitted in the written statement that he entrusted Mounesh to travel on the tractor along with the goods for constructing farmhouse. Admittedly, tractor is meant only for agricultural purpose, but at the time of the accident, bricks were carried and Mounesh was sitting on the load of bricks, and when tractor turned turtle he fell down and died on the spot and the tractor was used for the purpose other than for agriculture and it is in violation of the terms and conditions of policy. But the tribunal, without considering the arguments of the Insurance Company, fastened liability against them erroneously. Therefore, the said finding of the tribunal is set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 7. It was stated that Mounesh was working as an agricultural labour and earning Rs.500/- per day. But parents have not filed any income proof. As he met with an accident in the year 2013, his notional income is to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. He was aged 18 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘18’. His parents filed claim petition, therefore, they are entitled for 40% towards future prospects as per citation in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and 50% is to be deducted towards personal expenses, as he is bachelor. The loss of dependency comes Rs.8,000 + 40% x 12 x 18 - 50% = Rs.12,09,600/-. Also, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium as per Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others reported in 2018 ACJ 2782 (SC) and they are also entitled for Rs.30,000/- under the head conventional - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010492052016 NC: 2026:KHC:49619 MFA No. 8612 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 2297 of 2017 head as per the citation in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680. Therefore, the total compensation comes to Rs.13,19,600/-. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.11,38,000/- to Rs.13,19,600/-. In the result MFA No.8612/2016 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby allowed. MFA No.2297/2017 filed by the claimants is partly allowed. The liability fastened against insurance company is set aside and claimants are at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2 CT:SI