Karnataka High Court
Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga S/O ... vs K. Guleppa S/O K Lingappa on 20 April, 2021
Author: Chief Justice Chandangoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
MFA CROB NO.100001/2016 IN MFA NO.102649/2015
CONNECTED WITH
MFA NO.22106/2012, MFA NO.23434/2012, MFA
NO.102649/2015, MFA NO.102650/2015, MFA
NO.102651/2015, MFA NO.296/2016, MFA CROB
NO.100002/2016 IN MFA NO.102650/2015, MFA CROB
NO.100003/2016 IN MFA NO.102651/2015 AND MFA CROB
NO.100128/2016 IN MFA NO.23434/2012
IN MFA.CROB No.100001 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.102649/2015
BETWEEN
1. GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA
S/O ULLURU MALLAPPA @ YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
-2-
OCC:LABOUR
R/O:NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
2. BHAGYAMMA W/O GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
R/O:NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. K. GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
2. HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
BELLARY
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED
WITH VCO DATED 13.12.2012.
BY SMT PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-3-
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA 102649/2015 FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.559/2014
ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.22106 OF 2012
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD,
HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, HUBBALLI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI BASAVARAJ
S/O SHANMUKAPPA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI R/O YALGERI,
TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA,
NOW AT MOTEBENNUR,
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
2. SRI SHANMUKAAPPA
S/O CHANNABASAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O YALGERI, TQ: SHIKARIPUR,
DIST: SHIVAMOGGA,
OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-15/T-4484
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED,
SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-4-
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06.03.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.916/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
ADDITIONAL MACT, IT COURT, BYADAGI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,96,500/- WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
IN MFA No.23434 OF 2012
BETWEEN
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HOSPETH, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT MANAGER,
U M RAIKAR,
NEW INDIA ASSUARNCE CO. LTD.,
MTP HUBBALLI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SRINATH COMPLEX, NCM HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KENCHAPPA
S/O SHANKRAMMA
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: NOT MENTIONED
R/O: P K HALLI, TQ: HOSPETH,
DIST: BELLARY,
NOW AT 5TH WARD,
MINIRABAD, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
2. KUMAR GADHILINGAPPA
S/O KENCHAPPA
AGE: 15 YEARS,
-5-
MINOR REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER
NO.1, R/O: 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD,
TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
3. S DAWOOD
S/O REDDY BABANGOUDA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TT UNIT
R/O: PAPINAYAKANAHALLI,
TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE
WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD, DATED 31.05.2012 PASSED IN
WCA NO.8/2011 BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION,
KOPPAL AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,54,708/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN MFA No.102649 OF 2015
BETWEEN
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BALLARI
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SHASHANK S HEGDE,
ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA
S/O LATE ULLURU MALLAPPA @ YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 39 YEARS,
-6-
OCC: LABOUR,
R/O: NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
2. SMT. BHAYAMMA W/O GADHILINGAPPA
@ GADHILINGA
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: NEW YARRAGUDI VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
3. SRI. K GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
4. SRI. HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR FOR R1-R4)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.559/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE MACT - III AT BALLARI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,55,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
-7-
IN MFA No.102650 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BALLARI
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SRI. SHASHANK S HEGDE,
ADVOCATES FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. ULTEPPA S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KORACHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
2. SRI. K GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
3. SRI. HANUMESH
S/O NENIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
...RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR FOR R1-R3)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.560/2014 ON THE
-8-
FILE OF THE MACT - III AT BALLARI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,30,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
.
IN MFA No.102651 OF 2015
BETWEEN
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BALLARI
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SRI. SHASHANK S HEGDE,
ADVOCATES FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI.K MALLIKARJUNA
S/O K SHANMUKAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KARACHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
2. SRI.K GULEPPA
S/O K LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
3. HANUMESH,
S/O NENIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
TQ & DIST: BALLARI
...RESPONDENTS
(By SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)
-9-
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.561/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE MACT - III AT BALLARI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,30,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.296 OF 2016
BETWEEN
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
NO.2241/4, GIRIYAMMA SHAMBHUGOWDA COMPLEX
CHURCH ROAD
CHANNAPATNA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571501
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI.KEMPEGOWDA
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
AGED MAJOR
R/A S M DODDI VILLAGE
AKKUR POST
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501
2. SRI NAGEGOWDA
S/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A DODDAVITALENAHALLI VILLAGE
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI
- 10 -
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
3. SMT MANJULA
W/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS
R/A DODDAVITALENAHALLI VILLAGE
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
4. SRI AJAY V N
S/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
R/A DODDAVITALENAHALLI VILLAGE
VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED,
By SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - R4)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV
ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 05.10.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.229/2013 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC.,
ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,79,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA.CROB No.100002 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.102650/2015
BETWEEN
SRI.ULTEPPA S/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC:COOLIE
- 11 -
R/O:KORACHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. K. GULEPPA
S/O K LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
2. HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY
REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
BELLARY
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED
WITH VCO DT.13.12.2017,
BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE
FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.102650/2015 FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED
IN MVC NO.560/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT - III,
BALLARI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
- 12 -
IN MFA.CROB No.100003 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.102651/2015
BETWEEN
SRI.MALLIKARJUNA
S/O K SHANMUKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
OCC:COOLIE, R/O:KORACHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR)
AND
1. K. GULEPPA
S/O K LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
2. HANUMESH
S/O NENIKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232,
R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE
TQ:DIST:BELLARY
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
BELLARY
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED
WITH VCO DT.13.12.2017,
BY SMT : PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR
B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
- 13 -
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.102651/2015 FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED
IN MVC NO.561/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT - III,
BALLARI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.CROB No.100128 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.23434/2012
BETWEEN
1. SRI. KENCHAPPA
S/O SHANKRAMMA,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR, R/O: P.K. HALLI,
TALUK: HOSAPETE & DIST: BALLARI.
NOW AT 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD,
TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL-58322.
2. GADHILINGAMMA
D/O KENCHAPPA,
AGE: 19 YEARS,
R/O: P.K. HALLI,
TALUK: HOSAPETE & DIST: BALLARI.
NOW AT 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD,
TAL & DIST: KOPPAL-58322.
... CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. M AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI.S. DAWOOD
S/O REDDY BABANGOUDA,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: OWNER TT UNIT,
R/O: PAPINAYAKANAHALLI,
- 14 -
TALUK: HOSAPETE,
DIST: BALLARI-583101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HOSAPETE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASST MANAGER,U.M. RAIKAR,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MTP HUBBALLI DIVISIONAL OFFICE
SRINATH COMPLEX NCM
HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 SERVED,
BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.23434/2012 IS FILED
UNDER ORDER LXXXI RULE 22 OF CPCP AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 31.05.2012 PASSED IN WCA 8/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER
FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT,
KOPPAL AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE MFA CROSS OBJECTIONS AND MFAs ARE
REFERRED TO THE FULL BENCH FOR CONSIDERATION
OF THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES MADE BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: (i) Whether a person travelling on
a mud-guard of a tractor can be construed as an authorized
passenger or an unauthorized passenger and liability of such
person is covered or not? (ii) Whether the persons who are
working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached
to the tractor can be construed as employees so as to cover
their risk statutorily under Section 147 of MV Act though there
is only one seating capacity in the tractor apart from the driver?
(iii) Whether the crushing machine or ploughing machine or any
other instrument attached to the tractor can be considered to
- 15 -
be an attachment to the tractor so as to cover the risk of the
insured in respect of employees and the policy taken in respect
of the tractor alone? (iv) What is the effect of Section 147 of
MV Act to cover the statutory risk under the said situation?
THESE MFA CROSS OBJECTIONS AND MFAs
HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER , THIS
DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
A learned Single Judge of this Court, by the Judgment
and order dated 2nd January, 2018 disposed of MFA Crob Nos.
100001/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102649/2015, MFA Crob Nos.
100003/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102651/2015, MFA Crob Nos.
100002/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102650/2015, MFA No.102649,
MFA No.102650/2015 and MFA No.102651/2015. While
disposing of the said MFA cross objections and appeals, the
learned Single Judge was of the view that since there are
conflicting decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of
this Court, the following questions are required to be referred to
a larger Bench of this Court:
I) Whether a person travelling on a mud-guard of a
tractor can be construed as an authorized
passenger or an unauthorized passenger and
liability of such person is covered or not?
- 16 -
II) Whether the persons who are working either on
the ploughing or crushing machines attached to
the tractor can be construed as employees so as
to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of
MV Act though there is only one seating capacity
in the tractor apart from the driver?
III) Whether the crushing machine or ploughing
machine or any other instrument attached to the
tractor can be considered to be an attachment to
the tractor so as to cover the risk of the insured in
respect of employees and the policy taken in
respect of the tractor alone?
IV) What is the effect of Section 147 of MV Act to
cover the statutory risk under the said situation?
2. In M.F.A.No.22106/2012 (MV), the same learned Single
Judge, by the Order dated 14th March, 2018 referred to the
aforesaid Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2018
delivered in MFA Crob No. 10000/2016 (MV) and other
connected matters. The learned Single Judge observed that
in view of the reference made by him to the larger Bench by the
aforesaid Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2018, even
the said appeal being MFA No.22106/2012 be also placed
- 17 -
before the larger Bench for deciding the same issues. As, the
similar issues were involved in MFA No.23434/2012, MFA. No.
296/2016 and MFA Crob No.100128/2016 in MFA
No.23434/2012, they were clubbed with this batch of appeals.
By a special order dated 23rd November, 2020, the present Full
Bench is constituted to decide the above issues.
SUBMISSIONS:
3. The submissions have been made on behalf of the
claimants by Shri. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Advocate.
Shri. A.K. Bhat, the learned Advocate also sought leave of the
Court to make his submissions for supporting the case of the
claimants. On behalf of the insurance companies, submissions
have been made by the learned counsel Shri. B.C. Seetharama
Rao and Shri. A.G. Jadhav.
4. We may note here that some submissions were made on
the issue whether in a given facts of the case, an insurer can
be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants in
a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short 'the M.V Act'). However, we are not
concerned with any specific case. We are called upon to
decide the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge
- 18 -
which revolve around the requirement of statutory insurance
under Section 147 of Chapter XI of the M.V. Act. We may also
note here that we are considering the provisions of the M.V.
Act as amended by the Act No.54 of 1994. We are not called
upon to consider the provisions of the M.V. Act as amended by
the Act No. 32 of 2019.
5. We must note here that after the submissions were
concluded, Shri. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel
placed on record a decision of the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal and others -vs-
Union of India and another1. The said decision was placed
on record as it appears that the learned senior counsel wants
to argue that the reference made by the learned Single Judge
to a larger Bench was not warranted at all.
6. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel was that
the tractor in question was used in the agricultural field of the
insured at the time of the accident and it was covered by a
comprehensive insurance policy. He submitted that as per the
provisions of Section 147 of the MV Act, it is mandatory to
cover the liability of all the third parties under a policy of
- 19 -
insurance. He submitted that the deceased and the injured
persons were coolies engaged in agricultural operations in
the agricultural field of the insured. He pointed out that the
deceased who was sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor
was neither a traveller nor a passenger. He submitted that in
the case of M/S Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd., -vs- State
of Karnataka and others2 the Apex Court held that though a
trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a
motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods
carriage" under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport
vehicle" as defined under Section 2(47). He relied upon a
decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Noorulla -
vs- P.K. Prabhakar and another3. He also relied upon a
Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhimavva and
others -vs- Shankar alias Adya and others4 and submitted that
the questions No (i) and (ii), as framed by the learned Single
Judge are covered by the decision in the case of Bhimavva
(supra) and, therefore, he submitted that the reference be
answered by reframing the questions in terms of the decision of
the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Bhimavva (supra). The
AIR 2020 SC 3601
AIR 2005 SC 3428
1999-II LLJ 37
AIR 2004 Karnataka 58
- 20 -
learned senior counsel urged that a tractor is a carriage and,
therefore, the reference will have to be answered in the
affirmative by holding that the insurer is liable to indemnify the
insured, even in respect of the liability of a person sitting on the
mud-guard of a tractor or a tractor-trailer. He relied upon the
decision of the Punjab High Court (Delhi Bench) in the case of
Itbar Singh -vs- P.S. Gill and other5. He relied upon the
decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Skandia
Insurance Co. Ltd -vs- Kokilaben Chandravadan and
others6, (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Swaran
Singh and others7, (iii) Guru Govekar -vs- Miss. Filomena
F. Lobo and others8, and (iv) National Insurance Company
Limited -vs- Balakrishnan and another9. He placed
reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Sri.
Maruthi and others10. Lastly, he placed reliance on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Halappa -vs- Malik
Sab11. He submitted that on facts, the said decision holds
AIR 1955 Punjab (Delhi Bench)187
AIR 1987 SC 1184
2004 ACJ 1
AIR 1988 SC 1332
AIR 2013 SC 473
ILR 2011 KAR 4139
Civil Appeal Nos.022911-912 of 2017 Dt.15.12.2017
- 21 -
that the insurer is liable to cover the risk of the person who is
sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor.
7. Shri. A.K. Bhat, the learned Advocate who assisted the
Court submitted that there is no difference between a goods
carriage and a goods vehicle and hence, tractor-trailer will also
fall in the category of a transport vehicle being a goods
carriage. He relied upon a notification issued by the Central
Government dated 5th November, 2004, issued in exercise of
the powers under Sub-Section (4) of Section 41 of the M.V. Act
and submitted that the power tillers and tractors using public
roads are included in the category of transport vehicles. He
submitted that neither the provisions of the M.V. Act nor the
Rules framed thereunder provide for maximum sitting capacity
of a tractor. He submitted that under Section 61 (1) of the M.V
Act, even the registration of trailers is made compulsory and
hence, the owner of a tractor-trailer and the equipments
attached to a tractor are joint tort feasors along with the driver
of the tractor and hence, the insurer of each such vehicle is
liable to satisfy the claim to the extent specified under Section
147 of the M.V Act.
- 22 -
8. The learned counsel representing the insurer relied upon
the various decisions of the Apex Court which are as under:
i) Dhanraj -vs- New India Assurance Co Ltd and
another12
ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Asha Rani
and others13
iii) Shivaraj -vs- Rajendra and another14
iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd -vs- V. Chinnamma
and others15
Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the Rules
of the Road Regulations, 1989 (for short, "the Road
Regulations") framed by the Central Government in exercise of
its powers under Section 118 of the M.V Act. He relied upon
Regulation 28 thereof which lays down that a driver, when
driving a tractor shall not carry or allow any person to be
carried on the tractor.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS - QUESTION No (i)
9. We have carefully considered the submissions made
across the Bar. The first question framed by the learned Single
Judge is in relation to a person travelling on a mud-guard of a
(2004) 8 SCC 553
(2003) 2 SCC 223
(2018) 10 SCC 432
(2004) 8 SCC 697
- 23 -
tractor. The issue is whether such a person can be construed
as an authorized passenger and whether the liability of such
person is required to be statutorily covered by a policy of
insurance issued in accordance with Section 147 of the M.V
Act. The second question revolves around a fact situation
where ploughing or crushing machines are attached to the
tractor. The question is whether persons who are working on
the ploughing or crushing machines attached to a tractor can
be construed as employees whose risk is required to be
covered under Section 147 of the M.V Act. The third question
is on the issue whether the liability of the employees working
on ploughing machine or crushing machine attached to a
tractor is required to be covered by the policy of insurance,
though the insurance policy is taken only in respect of the
tractor. The answer to the question (iv) depends upon the
answers to the question Nos (i) to (iii).
10. For determining the reference made by the learned
Single Judge, it is necessary to look into the provisions of the
M.V Act, as it stood prior to the amendments made to it by the
Act No. 32 of 2019 were brought into force. We have to
consider the provisions of the M.V. Act before its amendment
- 24 -
made by the Act No. 32 of 2019. Chapter XI of the M.V. Act
deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks.
Sub-Section (1) of Section 146 of the M.V Act lays down that
no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow
any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place,
unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by
that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy
of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI.
Thus, by virtue of the above statutory provision, obtaining
insurance against third party risk is made mandatory for the
use of any motor vehicle in a public place. The requirement of
having such a policy as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 147 of the M.V. Act, for use of any motor vehicle in a
public place, is mandatory.
11. Sub-Section (1) of Section 146 and sub-sections (1) and
(2) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act which are material for our
purpose read thus:
"146. Necessity for insurance against third party
risk.--(1) No person shall use, except as a
passenger, or cause or allow any other person to
use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is
in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by that
- 25 -
person or that other person, as the case may be, a
policy of insurance complying with the requirements
of this Chapter:
Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying,
or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods,
there shall also be a policy of insurance under the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
Explanation.-- A person driving a motor vehicle
merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in
relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is
required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to
act in contravention of the sub-section unless he
knows or has reason to believe that there is no such
policy in force.
147. Requirement of policies and limits of
liability.--(1) In order to comply with the
requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance
must be a policy which--
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised
insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons
specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-
section (2)--
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him
in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any
person, including owner of the goods or his
authorised representative carried in the vehicle or
- 26 -
damage to any property of a third party caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any
passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Provided that a policy shall not be required -
(i) To cover liability in respect of the death, arising
out of and in the course of his employment, of
the employee of a person insured by the policy
or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such
an employee arising out of and in the course
of his employment other than a liability arising
under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily
injury to, any such employee -
(a) Engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) If it is a public service vehicle engaged as
conductor of the vehicle or in examining
tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) If it is a goods carriage, being carried in the
vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that the death of or bodily injury to any
person or damage to any property of a third party
shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have
- 27 -
arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place,
notwithstanding that the person who is dead or
injured or the property which is damaged was not in
a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or
omission which led to the accident occurred in a
public place."
12. On plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the
M.V. Act, it is clear that in order to comply with the
requirements of the provisions of Section 146 and 147, a policy
of insurance must be issued by an authorized insurer, as
defined in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 147. Clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 specifies the person or
classes of persons who are required to be insured to the extent
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 147. In view of clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, a policy of insurance must
cover (i) the liability incurred by the insured in respect of the
death of or bodily injury to any person, (ii) the liability which
may be incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily
injury to the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative carried in the vehicle and (iii) the liability in
respect of death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public
- 28 -
service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the
vehicle in a public place.
13. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V.
Act lays down that the policy shall not be required to cover the
liability in respect of a death, arising out of and in the course of
employment, of the employee of the insured and in respect of
bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and
in the course of employment. However, clause (i) of the
proviso further clarifies that a liability arising under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the W.C. Act')
is required to be covered by the policy in respect of death or
bodily injury to any such employees namely, (a) an employee
engaged in driving the vehicle or (b) in case of a public service
vehicle, a conductor of the vehicle or a person employed to
examine the tickets on the vehicle and (c) if it is a goods
carriage, being carried in the vehicle. The limit of the liability
is laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 147. However, in this
case, considering the scope of adjudication, we are not
concerned with the same.
14. Thus, a statutory insurance policy covered by Section
147 of the M.V Act is not required to cover the liability in
- 29 -
respect of the death of an employee arising out of and in the
course of his employment of the insured or liability in respect of
bodily injuries sustained by such an employee arising out of
and in the course of his employment. However, the exception
is that the liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to
the employees mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (i)
of the proviso to Section 147 of the M.V Act, arising under the
W.C Act is required to be covered by a statutory policy. Thus,
in other words, a policy of insurance is not required to cover the
liability arising of death of an employee or bodily injury to an
employee unless it is a liability under the W.C. Act in respect of
the employees mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (i)
of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147.
15. Sub-Section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act
specifically includes certain categories of persons sitting in the
vehicle which is involved in the accident whose liability is
required to be covered. Therefore, it emerges that unless sub-
section (1) of Section 147 specifically mentions that the liability
of a person or a class of persons is required to be covered
under a policy of insurance, the same is not required to be
mandatorily covered. Sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-
- 30 -
section (1) of Section 147 clearly lays down that the policy
must cover the liability of death of or bodily injury to any person
including owner of the goods or his authorized representative
carried in the vehicle. Obviously, it refers to liability in respect
of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative
when they are carried in a goods carriage, as defined in sub-
section (14) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act. Thus, in a goods
carriage, if the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative is carried, any liability which incurred in respect
of the death of or bodily injury to such persons is required to be
covered by a policy of insurance. In view of clause (i) (c) of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the
liability arising out of the death of or bodily injury to authorized
employees of the owner of the goods carried in goods carriage
is required to be covered. In view of sub-clause (b) of clause
(i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147, the liability
arising out of the injury to conductor or ticket examiner in a
public transport vehicle is required to be covered. As provided
in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 147, even the liability of death of, or bodily injury to a
driver of the insured is required to be covered by a policy of
insurance.
- 31 -
16. Now coming back to the first part of sub-section (1) of
Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the reference therein to the liability
in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person mentioned
therein is obviously to death of a third party or bodily injury to a
third party who is not occupying the insured vehicle. The
reason is that the person or class of persons occupying the
vehicle whose risk is required to be covered are specifically
mentioned in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147. The
liability of damage caused to the property of the third party for
the use of vehicle in a public place will have to be also covered.
It is in this context, the questions formulated by the learned
Single Judge will have to be considered.
17. For answering the four questions formulated by the
learned Single Judge, it is necessary to decide the question
whether a tractor can be termed as a 'goods carriage' as
defined in sub-section (14) of Section-2 of the M.V. Act. If we
peruse the various sub-clauses of Section-2 of the M.V. Act,
the classification of various motor vehicles has been made
thereunder with reference to its nature or its weight or its user.
"Motor Vehicle" is defined under sub-section (28) of Section 2
which means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for
- 32 -
use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted
thereto from an external or internal source. A 'tractor' is
defined in sub-section (44) of Section-2 of the M.V. Act which
reads thus:
"(44) 'tractor' means a motor vehicle which is
not itself constructed to carry any load (other than
equipment used for the purpose of propulsion);
excludes a road-roller".
From the above definition, it is clear that a 'tractor' is a motor
vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load other
than the equipment used for the purpose of propulsion. A
'trailer' is defined under sub-section (46) of Section-2 of the
M.V. Act which reads thus:
"(46) 'trailer' means any vehicle, other than
a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to
be drawn by a motor vehicle."
Hence, the condition precedent for applicability of the definition
of 'trailer' is that it must be a vehicle which is drawn or intended
to be drawn by a motor vehicle. The definition of 'trailer'
specifically excludes a semi-trailer. Sub-section (39) of Section
2 of the M.V. Act defines 'semi-trailer' which reads thus:
- 33 -
"(39) 'semi-trailer' means a vehicle not
mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which
is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and
which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-
imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne
by, that motor vehicle."
Thus, a semi trailer is a vehicle which is not mechanically
propelled. In view of the definition of "motor vehicle" defined
under sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act, the vehicle
must be mechanically propelled adapted for use upon roads.
Therefore, a semi-trailor by itself will not be covered by the
definition of motor vehicle. Moreover, a trailer as defined in
sub-section (46) of Section 2 is not a semi-trailer.
18. A goods carriage is defined in sub-section (14) of
Section 2 of the M.V. Act which reads thus:
"(14) 'goods carriage' means any motor
vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for
the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so
constructed or adapted when used for the carriage
of goods."
Considering the aforesaid definitions, it is very clear that unless
a motor vehicle is constructed or adapted for use solely for the
- 34 -
carriage of goods, it will not become a goods carriage. A
vehicle which is not so adapted or constructed when used for
carriage of goods also becomes a goods carriage.
19. Sub-section (23) and (16) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act
are also relevant which define 'medium goods vehicle' and
'heavy goods vehicle' respectively which read thus:
"(23) 'medium goods vehicle' means any
goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a
heavy goods vehicle."
(16) 'heavy goods vehicle' means any goods
carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a
tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either
of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms."
On plain reading of the above definitions, a vehicle cannot be
termed as a medium goods vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle
unless it is a goods carriage within the meaning of sub-section
(14) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act. Sub-section (35) of Section
2 of the M.V. Act defines 'public service vehicle' which reads
thus:
"(35) 'public service vehicle' means any motor
vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage
of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a
- 35 -
maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage
carriage."
Thus, a public service vehicle cannot be termed as a goods
carriage. A goods carriage cannot become a public service
vehicle. Sub-section (33) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act defines
'private service vehicle' which reads thus:
"(33) 'private service vehicle' means a motor
vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than
six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily
used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle
for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in
connection with, his trade or business otherwise
than for hire or reward but does not include a
motor vehicle used for public purposes."
Hence, a goods carriage cannot become a private service
vehicle. A private service vehicle cannot be termed as a goods
carriage. The definition of 'transport vehicle', as provided under
sub-section (47) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act means a public
service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus
or a private service vehicle.
- 36 -
20. On plain reading of the definition of sub-section (14) of
Section-2 of the M.V. Act, a tractor is not included in the
definition of goods carriage, as by its very nature, it is not
constructed or adapted to carry any load other than the
equipments used for the purpose of propulsion.
21. In fact, the issue whether a tractor is a goods carriage
arose for consideration before a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges
of the Apex Court in the case of V. Chinnamma (supra). In
paragraph 15 and 16, the Apex Court has dealt with the issue.
In categorical terms, it has been held that a tractor by itself is
not a goods carriage. However, in paragraph 16, the Apex
Court observed that a tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not
answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2
(14) of the M.V. Act. The observations made by the Apex
Court in paragraphs 15 and 16 are relevant which read thus:
"15. Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods
carriage. The expression "goods carriage" has been
defined in Section 2(14) to mean
"any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for
use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor
vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for
the carriage of goods"
- 37 -
whereas "tractor" has been defined in Section 2(44)
to mean
"a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed
to carry any load (other than equipment used for the
purpose of propulsion); but excludes a roadroller".
"Trailer" has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean
"any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a
sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor
vehicle".
16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not
answer the definition of goods carriage contained in
Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor
was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The
trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is
required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless
registered otherwise. It may be, as has been
contended by Mrs K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of
vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to
an inference that the tractor was being used for
agricultural purposes but the same by itself would
not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer
can be used for carriage of goods by another
person for his business activities. The deceased
was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables.
After he purchased the vegetables, he was to
transport the same to the market for the purpose of
sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose.
The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being
- 38 -
used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it
be assumed that the trailer would answer the
description of "goods carriage" as contained in
Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case
would be covered by the decisions of this Court
in Asha Rani and other decisions following the
same, as the accident had taken place on 24-11-
1991 i.e. much prior to coming into force of the 1994
amendment.
(Underline supplied)
22. Question No (I) framed by the learned Single Judge is
whether liability of a person travelling on a mud-guard of a
tractor is required to be covered by an insurance policy. The
Road Regulations have been framed by the Central
Government in exercise of its powers under Section 118 of the
M.V. Act. Section 118 of the M.V. Act which is under Chapter-
VIII deals with the control of traffic. Section 118 empowers the
Central Government to make Regulations for the driving of
motor vehicles by a notification in the Official Gazette.
Regulation 28 of the Road Regulations which deals with driving
of tractors and goods vehicles reads thus:
"28. Driving of tractors and goods
vehicles - A driver when driving a tractor shall not
carry or allow any person to be carried on the
- 39 -
tractor. A driver of goods carriage shall not carry
in the driver's cabin more number of persons than
that is mentioned in the Registration Certificate and
shall not carry passengers for hire or reward."
(Underline supplied)
Hence, by virtue of the above Regulation, a driver of a
tractor is not permitted to carry or allow any person to be
carried on a tractor including on its mud-guard. On this
aspect, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shivaraj
(supra) is very relevant. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said
decision, the Apex Court held thus:
"10. The High Court, however, found in favour of
Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled
in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach
of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured
for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods.
The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out
that neither was any trailer insured nor was any
trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow
that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a
passenger, even though the tractor could
accommodate only one person, namely, the driver.
As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent
2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by
the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the
tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court,
- 40 -
in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact
situation of the present case.
11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the
present case the High Court ought to have directed
the insurance company to pay the compensation
amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to
recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of
the consistent view taken in that regard by this
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran
Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd, (2018) 5 SCC 656,
Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2018) 8 SCC
492 and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh
Kumar Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796. In other words,
the High Court should have partly allowed the
appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant
may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction
to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the
compensation amount to the appellant with liberty
to recover the same from the tractor owner,
Respondent 1."
(Underline supplied)
23. The Apex Court has reiterated that a tractor could
lawfully accommodate only one person, namely, the driver.
The Apex Court categorically held that the appellant in the said
case had travelled in the tractor as a passenger even though
- 41 -
the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the
driver. It was categorically held that the insurer was not liable
to indemnify the owner of the tractor for the liability of a
passenger travelling on the tractor. Hence, in view of the
dictum of the Apex Court referred above, the liability of a
person sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor is not required to
be covered by statutory insurance policy, as contemplated by
sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act.
24. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Halappa
(supra) will not help the appellants-claimants. Perusal of the
said decision shows that a finding was recorded by the High
Court to the effect that the appellant therein (injured) was
sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor and therefore, his risk was
not covered by the insurer. However, the case of the appellant
was that he was not sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor. His
case was that when he approached the tractor, the driver was
unable to bring it to a halt as a result of which it turned turtle
and collided with the appellant-injured resulting in him
sustaining grievous injuries. In paragraph 8 of the said
decision, the Apex Court held that the insurer has failed to
prove its defence that the appellant Halappa was sitting on the
- 42 -
mud-guard of the tractor involved in the accident. Therefore,
this decision will not help the appellants.
25. This Court in the case of Noorulla (supra) was dealing
with the issues which do not arise in this case. The issues
which arose were concerning the coverage of the liability
regarding injury caused to second driver travelling in a goods
vehicle. As far as the decision of the Full Bench in the case of
Bhimavva (supra) is concerned, in paragraph 43 it was held
thus:
"43. The above makes it clear that the insurer shall
be liable to indemnify the person or classes of
persons specified in the policy in respect of any
liability which the policy purports to cover even in
proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act without
such liability having been first determined or
adjudged under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
In the case of an insurance policy which conforms
to the bare requirements of Section 147 of the Act,
the liability of the Insurance Company shall be
limited to the liability arising under the Workmen's
Compensation Act but any such liability would be
enforceable under the Motor Vehicles Act even
without an adjudication under the Workmen's
Compensation Act. The minority view to the extent
it purports to make a prior adjudication of the
- 43 -
liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act
essential for enforcement of the liability is not
supported by either the provisions of the Act or any
rule of interpretation. With the above observations,
We concur with the view taken by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice as already indicated earlier".
26. In the case of M/S Natwar Parikh (supra), the issue was
of categorization of tractor-trailer for the purposes of the
Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957. For the
purposes of taxation, it was held that tractor-trailer will be a
goods carriage. The test applied for the purposes of
interpreting the taxing statute was the actual use of the vehicle
on the relevant date. This decision is not relevant at all for
deciding the issue of statutory insurance.
27. In the case of The New India Insurance Company -vs-
Darshana Devi and others16, the deceased was allegedly
travelling on the mud-guard of a tractor which was loaded with
the goods. The allegation was that as a result of rash and
negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor, the
deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries sustained.
The Tribunal held that the tractor was not used for agricultural
2008 ACJ 1388 (SC) = (2008) 7 SCC 416
- 44 -
purposes for which it was insured and, therefore, it was held
that though the insurer is liable to pay the compensation, the
insurer was entitled to recover the same from the insured. In
the said case, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by
the insured and therefore, the insurer had approached the
Apex Court. From paragraph 13 onwards, the Apex Court has
considered its various decisions including the decision
rendered in the case of Asha Rani (supra). The perusal of
the findings recorded in paragraph 13 to 19 of the said decision
shows that the Apex Court was of the considered view that the
liability of such a passenger was not required to be covered by
a policy of insurance. However, the Apex Court declined to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India, considering the fact that the deceased
was a labourer. With a view to do complete justice to the
victim, the Apex Court, in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
directed the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award and directed
that the insurer need not file a separate execution petition
against the owner and it can directly recover the amount of
compensation from the owner of the vehicle.
- 45 -
28. Now coming to the case of Asha Rani (supra) wherein
the Bench consisting three Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court,
in paragraphs 9 and 27 held thus:
"9. In Satpal case [New India Assurance
Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 130] the Court assumed that the provisions of
Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are
identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a
careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it
clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was
not necessary for the insurer to insure against the
owner of the goods or his authorized representative
being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous
impression this Court came to the conclusion that
the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in
respect of the death or bodily injury caused to
either the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative when being carried in a goods
vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles
Amendment Act of 1994 is examined, particularly
Section 46, by which the expression "injury to any
person" in the original Act stood substituted by the
expression "injury to any person including owner of
the goods or his authorized representative carried
in the vehicle", the conclusion is irresistible that
prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994,
- 46 -
even if the widest interpretation is given to the
expression "to any person" it will not cover either
the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative being carried in the vehicle. The
objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it
seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of
the goods or his authorized representative carried
in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the
insurance policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes
the legislature amends the law by way of
amplification and clarification of an inherent
position which is there in the statute, but a plain
meaning being given to the words used in the
statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994,
and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in
1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons
engrafted in the amended provisions referred to
earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the
expression "including owner of the goods or his
authorized representative carried in the vehicle"
which was added to the pre-existing expression
"injury to any person" is either clarificatory or
amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the
other hand it clearly demonstrates that the
legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of
Section 147 and making it compulsory for the
insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle,
the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative being carried in a goods vehicle
- 47 -
when that vehicle met with an accident and the
owner of the goods or his representative either dies
or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court
in Satpal case [New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal
Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130]
therefore must be held to have not been correctly
decided and the impugned judgment of the
Tribunal as well as that of the High Court
accordingly are set aside and these appeals are
allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable
for paying compensation to the owner of the goods
or his authorized representative on being carried in
a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an
accident and the owner of the goods or his
representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.
27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability
which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in
respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or
damage to any property of a third party caused by
or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public
place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with
liability which may be incurred by the owner of a
vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any
passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or
arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public
place."
(underlines supplied)
- 48 -
Thus, liability of the owner of the goods or his authorized
representative is required to be covered by a policy only in
respect of a goods carriage.
29. A reliance was placed on a decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Maruthi and others (supra).
The said decision arose out of the claim petition filed before the
Commissioner under the W.C. Act. The Division Bench of this
Court held that the combination of tractor-trailer was a goods
carriage. In this case, we are not dealing with situation where
a trailer was attached to a tractor. Hence, the said decision is
not helpful to the appellants.
30. Reliance is placed by Shri. A.K. Bhat on the notification
issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power
under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the M.V. Act which
allegedly shows that power tillers and tractors using public
roads are transport vehicles. Perusal of Section 41 of the M.V.
Act shows that it deals with the procedure as to how the
vehicles should be registered. Sub-Section (4) thereof
provides that in addition to the other particulars required to be
furnished in the certificate of registration, the application made
- 49 -
by the owners for registration shall also specify the type of the
motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government may
notify in the Official Gazette. Under the definition of transport
vehicle under sub-section (47) of Section 2 of M.V.Act, a tractor
is not included. As held by the Apex Court, a tractor by itself is
not a goods carriage and therefore, merely on the basis of a
notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section 41, one
cannot jump to the conclusion that the tractor by itself is a
goods carriage as defined in M.V. Act. In a given case, if it is
attached to a trailer, the combination may become a goods
carriage. Sub section (4) of Section 41 provides for
classification only for the purposes of Registration of vehicles.
A goods carriage is specifically defined in the M.V. Act which
will not include a tractor.
31. The learned counsel Sri. A.K. Bhat relied upon a
decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Commissioner
of Income-tax, Madras -vs- S. Chenniappa Mudaliar17. The
issue dealt with therein was completely different and it is about
the validity of Rule 24 of the Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal)
Rules, 1946. The rules of interpretation of a taxing statute
AIR 1969 SC 1068
- 50 -
cannot be imported for interpretation of Section 147 of M.V.
Act.
32. The other judgments submitted by Shri. A.K. Bhat,
learned Advocate are totally irrelevant for the purpose of
deciding the issue involved in this case. A decision of the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation -vs- Smt. Vijayalaxmi and others18
deals with an issue of a passenger travelling on the roof of the
bus. Hence, the same is not helpful to the claimants. The
decision of the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta and
another -vs- Union of India and others19 does not concern
the interpretation of Section 147 of the M.V. Act and in fact, it
does not deal with the provisions of the M.V. Act at all.
33. Hence, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the
case of V. Chinnamma, Shivaraj and Darshana Devi (supra)
and the analysis made above, we have no manner of doubt
that a liability of a person working either on the ploughing or
crushing machines attached to the tractor and who is travelling
on the mud-guard of the tractor is not required to be covered by
2012 (3)KCCR 1772 (FB)
1987 ACJ 386
- 51 -
the statutory insurance as contemplated under sub-section (1)
of Section 147 of the M.V. Act.
QUESTION Nos (ii) AND (iii):
34. The question Nos (ii) and (iii) relate to the persons who
are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines or
any other instrument/equipment attached to a tractor. The
question is whether they can be construed as employees so as
to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of the M.V. Act.
Considering the definition of 'trailer' which we have already
quoted above, a ploughing or a crushing machine attached to a
tractor is not a trailer. The definition of 'semi-trailer' contained
under sub-section (39) of Section 2 makes it very clear that a
'semi-trailer' is not a trailer. A semi-trailer means a vehicle not
mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended
to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed
that a portion of it is super-imposed on, and a part of whose
weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. Therefore, every
instrument including ploughing or crushing machine attached to
a tractor will not necessarily be a trailer. At highest, it can be a
semi-trailer. Even assuming that the said two categories of
equipments are semi-trailers, the same are not the motor
vehicle covered by sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the M.V.
- 52 -
Act. Since a semi-trailer is not a motor vehicle, the provisions
of Section 147 of the M.V. Act will not apply to it. Chapter-XI
deals with the insurance of motor vehicles and, therefore, even
the provision of Section 147 of the M.V. Act deals with
insurance of motor vehicles. Even assuming that it is an
attachment to the tractor, it is not required to be covered by a
statutory policy of insurance as such attachments are not motor
vehicles. In view of sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (i) of
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the
liability of employees working on such instruments like
ploughing or crushing machine attached to a tractor is not
required to be covered by a policy of insurance in respect of a
tractor issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the
M.V. Act.
35. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, both the question
Nos (ii) and (iii) will have to be answered in the negative.
Hence, we answer the reference as under:
i) Question No (i) is answered in terms of paragraph
Nos 23 and 33. Question Nos (ii) and (iii) are
answered in the negative;
- 53 -
ii) Question No (iv) need not be answered
separately, in view of our answers to question
Nos (i) to (iii), it stands answered;
iii) All the pending appeals and cross objections
arising out of this group of appeals shall be placed
before the concerned Benches having roster for
consideration and disposal.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vr
