Karnataka High Court
Sayawwa And Ors vs Mallappa Sidramappa And Anr on 26 September, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
MFA No. 201070 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, ®
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201070 OF 2021 (MV-D)
BETWEEN
1. SAYAWWA W/O RAYAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
2. RAYAPPA MALAKRI PUJARI,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
3. SUNIL MALAKARI PUJARI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA 4. AKSHATA D/O MALAKARI PUJARI,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDENT OF JAKANUR,
TALUK. JAMAKAHANDI,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MALLAPPA SIDRAMAPPA NEMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. GURLAPUR, TALUK GOKAK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
MFA No. 201070 of 2021
HC-KAR
DISTRICT BELAGAVI-590 001.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
1ST FLOOR, HERALAGI BUILDING,
BEHIND SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2020
PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT-XV, AT VIJAYAPUR, IN MVC NO.1539/2015.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 04.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB
MFA No. 201070 of 2021
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) This appeal is by the claimants/appellants seeking for enhancement and calling in question the judgment and award dated 01.09.2020 in MVC No.1539/2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV at Vijayapura, on the ground of fastening the liability on the owner of the tractor and the trailer, as well as quantum.
2. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle, death of Malakari son of Rayappa Pujari are not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to fastening the liability on the owner of the tractor and trailer and inadequate compensation.
3. Heard Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Smt. Preeti Patil Melakundi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
4. Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar with all vehemence submitted that the deceased was sitting on the edge of road leading from Jambagi to Galagali near Nandi School, at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-49-T- 0518 and trailer bearing its registration No.KA-49-T-6897, loaded with sugar cane being driven by the driver of the tractor came in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and lost control over the vehicle. As a result, the trailer loaded with the sugar cane fell on the deceased causing severe injuries resulting in death of Malkari. The Tribunal, while answering the question of liability to pay the compensation, at paragraph 24 has stated that, both trailer and tractor stands in the name of respondent No.1 and they are duly insured. However, going through the definitions stated in the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, at paragraph No.25 reasoned that, the tractor was not insured and the trailer which cannot move on its own being propelled by the tractor. In those circumstances, since the tractor was not insured, hence, the owner is -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this reasoning is incongruent under law.
5. It is further contended that, the part of the vehicle loaded with sugar cane, which fallen on the deceased, was the trailer which was duly insured, as on the date of incident. However, mere fact that the trailer which was propelled by the tractor was not insured. Hence, it is not a circumstance to exempt the insurance company from paying the compensation.
6. So far as quantum is concerned, the learned counsel with all vehemence submitted that the date of accident was 2014. The deceased was aged 50 years as on the date of death and was doing Coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken income at Rs.7,500/-, however, not added any amount towards Future Prospectus and the same requires re-consideration. Future Prospectus atleast at the rate of 25% is required to be considered. The deduction towards expenditure and personal expenses be deducted at 1/4th instead of 1/3rd -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR and the compensation awarded in other conventional heads are also on the lower side which requires re-consideration. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and set aside the findings of fastening the entire liability on the owner and instead, direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation by enhancing the compensation.
7. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants, Smt. Preeti Patil Melakundi with all vehemence submitted that the learned single judge of this Court in MFA No.201601/2016, referred the matter in similar circumstances to the Division Bench to answer on the following legal issues:
a) Whether the liability of the Insurer stands absolved if all the components of the goods carriage i.e., the tractor or trailer(s) are not insured.
Or
b) Whether the liability of the Insurer stands attracted if any one of the components of the goods carriage i.e., the tractor or the trailer/s are insured Or -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
c) In cases of an accident involving a tractor- trailer where the tractor is insured and the trailer is uninsured, whether the liability of the insurer would stand restricted only to the extent of the share of the owner of the tractor, making the owner of the trailer would be responsible for the remaining extent (i.e., if 50% of the compensation would have to be paid by the insurer and the remaining 50% by the owner of the trailer).
d) For the instant case, where an accident has occurred involving a tractor and two trailers -- in which the tractor and one of the two trailers are uninsured but only one trailer is insured -- whether the owner of the uninsured tractor and the uninsured trailer would be liable to pay 2/3rd of the compensation and the insurer of the trailer would be liable to pay only 1/3rd of the compensation.
8. Accordingly, the liability fastened on the owner by the Tribunal is sound and reasonable and it does not call for any interference at the hands of this court. As in the case on hand, only one of the trailers was insured, which falls for consideration in terms of question number No.C of the above said writ petition. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal on the liability. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
9. So far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal in the absence of any proof of income taken the income at the rate of Rs.7,500/-, according to the income fixed under the chart and considering the number of dependants, though there are four sons, one of the son was aged 25 years and another 22 years and all the sons are major, however taken 2/3rd which does not call for interference and accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial court papers, the only points that would arise for our consideration is:
i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on respondent No.1 - owner of the tractor as well as trailer, when the trailer which fallen on the deceased admittedly insured?
ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is befit within the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR expression just compensation and call for any interference?
11. Our answer to above points for consideration are as under:
Point No.1 - in negative Point No.2 - partly in affirmative.
Point No.1 :
12. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, the specific case of claimants is that trailer No.KA- 49/T-6897 loaded with sugarcane, being driven by the driver of the tractor No.KA-49/T-0518 in a rash and negligent manner, an accident was occurred, and trailer only fell on the deceased, who was sitting at the edge of road. The factual issue is not in dispute and only issue is that tractor is not insured, but only trailer is insured and tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner and meager compensation was awarded.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
13. The counsel appearing for the claimants would vehemently contend that the approach of the tribunal that when the tractor was not insured and without the tractor, the trailer cannot be moved and though it is a separate vehicle, there should be separate policy to the tractor and trailer as per Clause A(3) of Section 64B of the Insurance Act and comes to the conclusion that if any one is not insured, it is to be treated that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence directed the owner to pay the compensation.
14. The counsel appearing for the respondents mainly relies upon the judgment of learned Single Judge. Wherein a reference is made to the Division Bench in the MFA No.201601/2016 raising some of the points for consideration by the Division Bench. Admittedly, though reference was made and the same is not decided before the Division Bench and the same is also not an issue before this Court, in view of the reference made to Division Bench since same is not assigned to this Court
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR and point for consideration which were referred by the learned Single Judge till date not answered. Hence, said reference will not comes to the aid of the insurance company.
15. Now this Court has to consider the material on record, whether the tribunal committed an error in fastening liability on the owner. We have already pointed out that no dispute with regard to the factual aspects is concerned. When such being the case, this Court has to consider the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, this Court would like to rely upon certain provisions of Motor Vehicles Act :
Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act') defines 'Motor Vehicle' as follows :
"motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1 [twenty-five cubic centimeters];
Section 2(44) of the M.V.Act, defines 'Tractor' as follows :
"tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;
Section 2(46) of the M.V.Act, defines 'Trailer' as follows :
"trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi- trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.
16. Therefore, tractor engine is a vehicle or motor vehicle, which is mechanically propelled vehicle and trailer, is intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Therefore, when the trailer is attached to tractor, then the whole tractor and trailer becomes component of motor vehicle. As per the definition of Section 2(44) of the M.V.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR Act, the tractor, being motor vehicle, is not itself constructed to carry any load. But when the tractor is usable, when tractor is attached to the trailer, the trailer means which is intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, therefore, when these definitions of motor vehicle, vehicle tractor and trailer are interpreted, it becomes whole vehicle.
17. When the tractor and trailer attached and both are moving, even if, tractor alone is insured and trailer is not insured, but the insurer of tractor is liable and responsible to pay compensation. This principle was laid down by this Court in the case of Honnamma and others vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., and others1. This Court in paragraph No.4, in detail discussed and taken note of the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sri Maruthi2 wherein it is held that the combination of tractor-trailer is nothing short of a goods carriage. Therefore, when once it is held as 1 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1985 2 ILR 2011 KAr 4139
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR goods carriage vehicle, by virtue of Section 11-1(1) of fully worded policy and also provisions of Section 147, the claim of the claimants on hand is covered. It is also held that depending upon the user of the vehicle whether for agricultural purpose or for commercial purpose, the liability of the insurer would be decided. When the intention of the legislation was to cover compulsorily all the risk arising out of the use of a motor vehicle and that the liability of the insurer is co-extensive with that of the insured subject to Section 147(1)(b), coolies or employees are compulsorily covered and held the insurance company is liable. The said judgment is also challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2135/2023. The Hon'ble Apex Court confirmed the judgment vide its order dated 05.05.2025 and coming to the conclusion that there is no infirmity in the order. In the case on hand, the case is vice-versa and in the said case tractor was in insured, but in the present case trailer is insured and tractor is not insured.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
18. This Court also would like to rely upon paragraph No.33 of the Maruthi's case decision having considered same, it is very clear that tractor and trailer combined would constitute a goods carriage, therefore permits are necessary for its use on the roads. Under Motor Vehicles Act, by Section 2(44) and 2(46) the definition of tractor-trailer would definitely indicate when the trailer drawn are intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it becomes a goods vehicle.
19. In the present case on hand, the deceased is a third party. The Ho'ble Apex Court in the judgment of Pappu and others vs Vinodlumar Lamba and another3, held that the benefit of third party claim is available only an establishment of defence available under Section 2 of Section 149 only, but not otherwise.
20. This Court also would like to rely upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Santokben 3 (2018) 3 SCC 308
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR Anupsing Chauhan and others vs. Sursing Motibhai Baia and others4, would like to extract paragraphs No.14, 15, 16 and 18.
"14. The term "Trailer" has been defined under Section 2(46) as under:
""trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle."
15. Thus, any vehicle, which is mechanically propelled and is adapted for use upon roads, whether such propulsion is transmitted from an external or internal source, is motor vehicle. It includes chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer. The definition of term "motor vehicle" thus is provided in the means and includes expression. In the includes portion trailer is specifically covered. For better clarification the word Trailer' itself has been defined under Section 2(46) as to mean any vehicle other than a semi trailer and a sidecar drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. The fact, that the trailer in question was one which would be covered under Section 2(46) of the Act is beyond dispute. By virtue of Section 2(28) of the Act, such trailer when attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle becomes a motor vehicle. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of the insurance company that the trailer is not a motor vehicle.
16. When thus such a motor vehicle was being driven by the licensed driver and which, as concluded above, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, 4 2015 SCC Online, Guj 5535
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR the insurance company, which had insured such trailer, is duty bound to cover the risk of a third party who may receive any injury on account of accident arising out of use of such motor vehicle and resulting from such rash and negligent act of the driver. As recorded earlier, but for the trailer, being joined to the tractor, the accident in question would not have occurred. This is one more reason to hold the insurance company of the trailer liable to satisfy the award in its entirety. The insurance company could have avoided its liability if it is established that a condition of the insurance required the insured to use the trailer only with a specific tractor which was covered under the insurance policy. This admittedly is not the case before us. As conceded by the witness of the insurance company, neither the insurance policy nor the cover note specified any such condition. Merely because therefore the insurance policy was issued with respect to a particular tractor and the trailer in question would not imply any condition that the same must be used simultaneously so as to be able to enjoy the insurance coverage. In absence of any such condition, the owner cannot be deprived of the insurance coverage and, at any rate, the third party cannot be deprived of the right of full compensation. Insurance is a contract of indemnity. No condition which does not form part of such contract can be read by implication.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Under the circumstances, the approach of the Tribunal, that the insurer of the trailer would bear only 50% of the compensation cannot be accepted. This is not a case where two separate vehicles were involved in an accident where their liabilities can be segregated even for the internal separation. Here is the case, where driver of the tractor with a trailer acted negligently. The accident took-place on account of use of trailer as a motor vehicle. One cannot look at this accident as a negligent act of the trailer or of the tractor. Negligence is that of a human agency. The resultant accident occurred on account of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR use of a motor vehicle. In the result, the opponent No. 3- insurance company is held liable to satisfy the entire award and not just 50%, as provided by the Claims Tribunal."
Wherein the Gujarati High Court, in paragraph No.14 discussed with regard to definition of "trailer" under Section 2(46) means any vehicle, other than a semi trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.
21. In paragraph No.15, it is discussed that any vehicle, which is mechanically propelled and is adapted for use upon roads, whether such propulsion is transmitted from an external or internal source, is motor vehicle. The definition of the term "motor vehicle" thus is provided in the means and includes expression. In the includes portion, trailer is specifically covered. For better clarification taken note of Section 2(46). By virtue of Section 2(28) of the Act, such trailer when attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle becomes a motor vehicle.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
22. In paragraph No.16, it is discussed that when such a motor vehicle was being driven by the licensed driver and which, as concluded above, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the insurance company, which had insured such trailer, is duty bound to cover the risk of a third party who may receive any injury on account of the accident arising out of use of such motor vehicle and resulting from such rash and negligent act of the driver. As recorded earlier, but for the trailer, being joined to the tractor, the accident in question would not have occurred. This is one more reason to hold the insurance company of the trailer liable to satisfy the award in its entirety. It is not in dispute that the trailer is insured with respond No.2 and without the aid of the tractor the same cannot be moved independently, but the same is defined as a motor vehicle. The insurance company could have avoided its liability if it is established that a condition of the insurance required the insured to use the trailer only with a specific tractor which was covered under the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR insurance policy and in this case also trailer is used in respect of other tractor not insured but tractor of trailer series is insured
23. But, in the case on hand also, the trailer was attached to other tractor, but not the tractor involved in the accident. But, the fact is that the trailer is insured with respondent No.2 is not in dispute. Admittedly this is not a case before the Court that there was no insurance to the trailer and even if vehicles are insured with different insurance company the same cannot be a reason to avoid the liability when the insurance policy was issued in respect of the trailer.
24. In the case on hand, it is very clear that trailer which was issued only fell on the third party and no condition in the policy that the said trailer has to be propelled only to the tractor which was insured and no such condition is imposed, the owner cannot be fastened on the liability since the trailer is insured and insurance company cannot avoid the liability and the third party
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR admittedly cannot be deprived of right of compensation. The Gujarat High Court also in detail discussed in paragraphs No.14, 15, 16 and 18 and even to the extent of 50% and held that entire compensation is payable and no 50% as contended in the said appeal.
25. In the case on hand, where driver of the tractor with a trailer acted negligently and accident took place on account of use of trailer as a motor vehicle. One cannot look at that this accident as a negligent act of the trailer and the trailer is propelled to the tractor and negligence is that of a human agency.
26. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also the definition of Section 2(44), Section 2(46) as well as Section 2(28) which have been extracted above, it is very clear that both tractor and trailer are the motor vehicle and when the trailer is also a motor vehicle, no doubt both tractor and trailer must be insured separately. But, in the case on hand, when the claimant is a third party and when the
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR trailer which was insured, trailer was fell on the third party, who was sitting on the edge of the road as there is a direct contact between the trailer and the victim and also it is clear that without the aid of the tractor, trailer cannot be moved. Since, no engine is attached and the purpose of treating the trailer as also motor vehicle would be defeated, if it is considered in strict sense.
27. When such being the case, it is vice versa when this Court held that when the tractor is insured and trailer is not insured held the responsibility on the insurance company and similarly, when the tractor is not insured and when the trailer is insured, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, trailer only fell on the third party. Hence, the tribunal fails to take note of the said fact into consideration and lost sight of the above discussion made as the third party is the victim and committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner instead of insurance company since insurance company not disputed the fact that the trailer was insured with
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent No.2. Hence, fastening the liability on the owner is nothing but an error committed by the tribunal. Therefore, we answered the point No.1 as negative that the tribunal not justified in fastening liability on the owner and fails to take note of the fact that claimants are third parties, it is the bounden duty of the insurance company, when the trailer was insured to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in terms of the contract.
Point No.2 :
28. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants that the tribunal not awarded just and reasonable compensation. The material clearly discloses that the deceased was aged about 50 years. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the post mortem report also discloses the same and rightly taken the income at Rs.7,500/- since the accident was taken place in 2014 and the same is a national income. When the post mortem report discloses age as 50 years and in between the group of 50-60 years, future prospectus has to be
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR added as 10% but tribunal has not added the same. Though counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that ought to have added 25% and the same cannot be accepted.
29. The tribunal committed an error in deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th towards personal expenses, and reason assigned is only that two of the children are majors. In view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Seema Rani and Ors. V. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.5, it is categorically held that in view of decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Birendra and Ors.6 even major married sons and daughters are also entitled for a compensation. But, in the case on hand, claimants No.2 and 3 only the majors and even they unmarried and non earning member. When such being the case, the deduction made 1/3rd instead of 1/4th erroneous, which requires interference of this Court.
5 2025 INSC 192 6 (2020) 11 SCC 356
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
30. When such being the case, this Court has to revisit the calculation. Having considered the notional income as Rs.7,500/-, by adding 10% as future prospects, it comes to Rs.8,250/-. Having considered the same i.e., Rs.8,250/- by deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses, it comes to Rs.6,188/-. Thus, loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,65,328/- (6,188 x 12 x 13).
31. The claimants are four in number are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium which comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and transportation expenses. Also a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.11,55,328/-.
32. Since more than six years have lapsed after rendering of decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors.7, appellants would be 7 (2017) 16 SCC 680
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR entitled for addition of 20% i.e., Rs.38,000/- on award under conventional heads. Adding the same, it comes to Rs.11,93,328/- and same is payable with interest at the rate of 6%. Hence, we have answered point No.2 partly in affirmative in coming to the conclusion that Tribunal committed an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation.
33. In view of discussion made above, we pass the following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
01.09.2020 passed in MVC
No.1539/2015 by the Court of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.XV, Vijayapur is modified by granting compensation of Rs.11,93,328/- as against Rs.8,65,000/- with interest of 6% from the date of petition till its realization.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5860-DB MFA No. 201070 of 2021 HC-KAR
iii) Liability is fastened on respondent No.2
- Insurance Company instead of respondent No.1 - owner.
iv) Enhanced compensation is payable
within six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
v) The disbursement as well as
apportionment of the amount is
unaltered.
vi) Transmit the records to tribunal
forthwith to enable the claimants to withdraw the compensation amount.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE THM,SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:JLR