Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga S/O ... on 11 January, 2022

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.102649/2015 (MV)
                           C/W.
      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL Nos.102650/2015 AND
                    102651/2015 (MV)

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES, BALLARI
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
                                           ...APPELLANT
                                              (COMMON)
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA
      S/O. ULLURU MALLAPPA @ YELLAPPA
      AGED ABOUT: 39 YEARS,
      OCC: LABOUR, R/O: NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

2.    SMT.BHAGYAMMA
      W/O. GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. NEW YARRAGUDI VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

3.    SRI.K. GULEPPA, S/O. K. LINGAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
                            2




     DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
     NO.KA-34/T-4232,
     R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
     BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

4.   SRI.HANUMESH, S/O NENIKAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
     NO.KA-34/T-4232,
     R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
     BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                               (IN MFA NO.102649/2015)

1.    SRI.ULTEPPA S/O RAMAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
      R/O: KORACHEDU VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

2.    SRI.K. GULEPPA,S/O K. LINGAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
      DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
      NO.KA-34/T-4232,
      R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

3.    SRI.HANUMESH, S/O NENIKAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
      OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
      NO.KA-34/T-4232,
      R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
                               (IN MFA NO.102650/2015)


1.   K MALLIKARJUNA, S/O K SHANMUKAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O. KARACHEDU VILLAGE,
     BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT
                              3




2.   SRI. K. GULEPPA, S/O. K. LINGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
     NO.KA-34/T-4232,
     R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
     BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT

3.   SRI.HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
     OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING
     NO.KA-34/T-4232,
     R/O. KARCHEDU VILLAGE,
     BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
                                  (IN MFA NO.102651/2015)
                            ---

MFA NO.102649/2015 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.559/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 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.

MFA NO. 102650/2015 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.560/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,30,800/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

MFA NO.102651/2015 IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.561/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,30,800/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

COMMON JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants in

all the above three appeals. Though the respondents

in all these three appeals are served, they have

remained unrepresented.

2. These three appeals were filed by the

Insurer questioning the common judgment and award

dated 19.06.2015 passed by the Court of III Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal at Ballari (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC

No.559/2014, 560/2014 and 561/2014.

3. The brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of all these three

appeals are:

The claimants in MFA No.102649/2015 are the

legal representatives of deceased Vasantha Kumar,

who was traveling in a tractor standing on its mud-

guard, while the claimants in MFA Nos.102650/2015

and 102651/2015 are the injured, who were traveling

on the tilling machine, which was attached to the

tractor in question bearing registration No. KA-34/T-

4232. It is the case of the claimant in all these cases

that, on 12.07.2013 at about 4:30 p.m., the said

tractor in which the deceased and other two

claimants were traveling was driven in a rash and

negligent manner by its driver and the driver lost

control of the tractor and as a result the tractor

turtled and met with the accident. The deceased

Vasantha Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the

spot and the claimants in other two cases sustained

injuries and they were taken to the hospital for

treatment.

Subsequently the legal representatives of

Vasantha Kumar and the injured claimants had filed

three separate claim petitions claiming compensation

in respect of the road traffic accident that had taken

place on 12.07.2013. The Tribunal vide the

impugned judgment and award had party allowed all

the three claim petitions and while awarding

`5,55,000/- as compensation in the case of death,

had awarded the compensation of `2,30,800/- each

in case of injury and had saddled the liability to pay

the compensation on the Insurer of the tractor in

question. Being agreed by the same the Insurer is

before this Court in these three appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer

contends that, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Full Bench of this Court in the case of

Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga and another Vs. K.

Guleppa and Others reported 2021 (2) AKR 712,

the persons traveling on the mud-guard of the tractor

and the persons who are traveling on tilling machine

attached to the tractor are not covered under the

Insurance Policy and therefore, the Insurance

Company cannot be held liable to pay the

compensation.

5. I have carefully considered the augments

addressed on behalf of the appellant Insurer and also

perused the material on record.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of

Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga (supra) at paragraphs 23

and 34 has observed as follows:

"23. The Apex Court has reiterated that a tractor could lawfully accommod ate 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 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.

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 q uoted above, a ploughing or a crushing machine attached to a tractor is not a trailer. The definition of semi-trailer contained und er 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. 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 d eals with the insurance of motor vehicles and, therefore, even the provision of Section 147 of the M.V. Act d eals 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."

7. Having regard to the said pronouncement

made by the Full Bench of this Court, the Insurer of

the tractor in question cannot be made liable to pay

the compensation amount to the claimants.

Admittedly, in the case on hand, the deceased was

traveling on the mud-guard of the tractor while the

injured claimants where traveling on the tilling

machine attached to the tractor and therefore, all the

cases are covered by the judgment of the Full Bench

in Gadhilingappa's case (supra).

8. Therefore, the judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal saddling the liability on the Insurer to