- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 953 OF 2022 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 858 OF 2022 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 953/2022 BETWEEN: 1. LEGAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE EAST WING, NO.28/5 CENTENARY BUILDING M.G. ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER RANJEETH KUMAR S/O LATE KODANDARAMU NOW AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATRUAL GUARDIAN SMT. ANITHA W/O LATE KODANDARAMU NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT POOLAVARAPALLI PARAGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. 2. LAKSHMINARASIMHAPPA MAJOR S/O CHINNAYAPPA R/AT POOLAVARAPALLI PARAGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ANANDA V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.11.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1953/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY, (SCCH-6) AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 IN MFA NO. 858/2022 BETWEEN: 1. MASTER RANJEETH KUMAR S/O.LATE KODANDARAMU AGED 12 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPTD. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. ANITHA W/O. LATE KONDANDARAMU AGED 29 YEARS OCC: COOLIE(AGRICULTURE) POOLAVARAPALLI PARGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 207. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMHAPPA S/O. CHINAYAPPA POOL AVARPALLI VILALGE PARAGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 207. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 2. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED 28/5 CENTENARY BUIDLING EAST WING M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE OF R1 IS D/W, V/O DATED 8/2/22) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1953/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURLU CITY (SCCH-6) AND ETC., THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) Heard Mr. Pradeep B., learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Mr. Latur Suresh Mahalingappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.953/2022. The second respondent – owner of the offending vehicle though has been served, but he has chosen not to contest the appeal. 2. Miscellaneous First Appeal No.858/2022 has been filed by the claimant, represented by his natural guardian. The first respondent - owner of the offending vehicle though was served, but he has chosen not to appear and contest the appeal. Mr. Pradeep B., learned counsel appears for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant had suffered injury in the accident which took place on 07.01.2018 at 08.20 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-40-TA-7491 at Sanjeevrayanahalli village, Gudibande - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 Taluk. The claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and he fell down from the tractor and suffered serious injuries. His right leg was amputated in the course of his medical treatment. The injuries suffered by him, as per the medical records (Ex.P9) are:- i) Traumatic amputation right leg middle 1/3 ii) Lacerated wound right thigh measuring 10 x 3 x 1 centimeter, middle 1/3rd 5. The Doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined before the Tribunal as PW2. He produced the medical certificate and said that the claimant had suffered permanent disability of 75% in respect of right lower limb and 37.5% in respect of whole body. The Tribunal, therefore, took the disability at the rate of 37.5% to calculate loss of future earnings while granting the compensation. 6. Mr. Pradeep B., learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company could not have been held liable for payment of compensation as the claimant was an unauthorized occupant on the tractor and the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 claimant was not covered under the insurance policy. However, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company incorrectly without considering the terms of the insurance policy, and also the fact that the claimant was unauthorisedly travelling in the tractor, sitting on the mudguard, against the terms of the insurance policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Rules made therein. 6(i) In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga v. K. Guleppa s/o K. Lingappa1. He has relied upon paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the said judgment in support of his contention that, in such cases, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of the compensation, as a claimant in such a position is not covered under the contract of insurance. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Latur Suresh Mahalingappa, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Hon’ble 1 (2023) ACJ 623 (MFA CROB No.100001/2016 in MFA No.102649/2015 dt.20.04.2021) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 Supreme Court in similar facts and circumstances of the case, though has held that the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation, but has ordered the Insurance Company to make payment of the awarded sum and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamta & Others v. Bhav Singh & Another2. 7(i) He has also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has considered only disability at the rate of 37.5% while calculating future loss of income of the claimant, whereas it should be 100% looking at the injuries suffered by the claimant. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Others v. Gainda Lal & Others3. 8. We have considered the submissions. So far as the Full Bench judgment of this Court is concerned, it is on the same facts and circumstances as involved in the present case 2 2023 ACJ 624 3 2023 ACJ 588 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 and we respectfully agree with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation in case of injury or death suffered by the victim / person sitting on tractor other than the driver in as much as the contract of insurance does not cover such a person. Therefore, we hold that the appellant - Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 9. However, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamta supra, V. Renganathan and another v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & another4, we are of the view that the Insurance Company should make the payment and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 10. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, if we consider the schedule of the Employee's Compensation Act, 2023, the amputation is below the knee of the right leg, disability has to be taken at the rate of 50%. Therefore, we recalculate the compensation considering the disability at the rate of 50%, and calculate the 4 2023 ACJ 623 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 loss of future income as Rs.10,000/- minus 50% = Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,00,000/-. The compensation awarded in respect of other heads need no modification. 11. Therefore, we modify the award as under:- 12. In the result, we pass the following: ORDER i. The appeals are allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award passed by the IV Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T. (SCH-6) at Bengaluru, in MVC HEADS Rs. Loss of Future Earnings 9,00,000=00 Pain and suffering 1,00,000=00 Loss of amenities 1,00,000=00 Loss of income of mother 10,000=00 Medical expenses 2,31,747=17 Diet and transportation expenditure 15,000=00 TOTAL 13,56,747=00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 9,96,747=00 ENHANCED COMPENSATION 3,60,000=00 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 No.1953/2018 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. We modify the interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. iii. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,56,747/- as against Rs.9,96,747.17 ps., awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of its realization. iv. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v. The disbursement and payment of compensation shall be in terms of the award. vi. Any amount deposited by the Insurance Company while filing the appeal shall be remitted back to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022 vii. The Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. viii. Draw up modified award accordingly. ix. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Tribunal along with its record, forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration. BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.:8 Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE