- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5607 MFA No. 11 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2015 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER M/S. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SS COMPLEX, I FLOOR, SUBHASH SQUARE, HASSAN, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K.T. PARVEGOWDA S/O LATE TAMMANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KYANAHALLI VILLAGE SAKALESHPURA TALUK PRESENTLYL RESIDING AT C/O SHIVARAM, 3RD MAIN ROAD ADLIMANE ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA HASSAN - 573 201. 2. D.K. DHARMESH S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT CHOWLAGALA VILLAGE Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court Of Karnatka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5607 MFA No. 11 of 2015 DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 225. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 13.09.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.685/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the Judgment and award dated 01.10.2014 passed in MVC No.685/2009 by the MACT and II Addl. District and Sessions Judges at Hassan (for short ‘the Tribunal’) wherein the claimant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5607 MFA No. 11 of 2015 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking and status before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for appellant present inspite of service of notice. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not attend. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record. 6. Brief facts of the case are as under: That on 13.03.2008 injured met with an accident 13.03.2008 and sustained injuries. The injured claimant filed this appeal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.27,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of its realization. The 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation, however 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5607 MFA No. 11 of 2015 receipt of order and the same can be recovered from 1st respondent. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal and mainly contended that as per the complaint, the petitioner was going in goods Ape Auto bearing registration No:KA 13 9171, the rider of the goods Ape Auto driven in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle and it capsized. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries. Driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive transport vehicle and the petitioner was a passenger in goods auto. 8. The police filed chargesheet against the driver of the vehicle for not holding license to drive the class of the vehicle which he was driving. Though petitioner claims that he was travelling with the goods, there were 10 passengers in the vehicle and vehicle met with the accident due to the over loading. Petitioner in the cross examination stated that he was carrying 4 to 5 kgs of vegetables in all. So it can be considered as personal belongings and not the goods. Therefore, Tribunal ought to have considered that the passengers are in the goods - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5607 MFA No. 11 of 2015 vehicle and held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 9. Further, he also relied upon the citation reported by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2008 ACJ 268 in which it was held in National Insurance Company vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Others, in which it was held that, Act does not provide for carrying large number of passengers with small percentage of goods. Hence, carrying of 4 to 5 kgs of vegetables along with them will not make passengers travelling with goods and carrying large number of passenger in a goods vehicle. Thus the appellant requested the Court to examine them and pay the compensation. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was travelling in a goods vehicle along with the other members and the vehicle turned and met with an accident, petitioner simply stated that he was carrying 4 to 5 kgs. of vegetables along with him, that does not make him to say he was travelling in a goods vehicle. He was only carrying his personal belongings along with him. 11. Appreciating the facts properly and ordered for pay and recover. Therefore, this Courts finds that it is just and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5607 MFA No. 11 of 2015 reasonable to accept the order and Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. However, the petitioner is instructed to recover the amount from owner of the vehicle by due process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is exonerated from paying the liability and the amount already paid by the Insurance Company shall be refunded to them. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE LL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71