Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijayakumar vs Smt Rathnamma on 4 August, 2023
Bench: C M Joshi
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9768 OF 2017 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1905 OF 2019 (MV-I)
IN M.F.A. NO. 9768 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O.
VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43
YEARS,
R/O. MEDIGESHI-572
132
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE [V/C])
Digitally
signed by T S AND:
NAGARATHNA
Location: High 1 . SMT. RATHNAMMA,
Court of
Karnataka W/O. LATE MANUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
2 . SMT. GANGAMMA,
W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT:
MEDIGESHI-572 132,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
3 . THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.
LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, TOWER-2,
INDIA BULLS FINANCE CENTRE,
SENAPAT BAPAT MARG,
ELPHINESTOIEN ROAD,
MUMBAI-400 013.
MAHARASTRA STATE.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED MANAGER.
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE
THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO.
LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LAND MARK,
OPP:TB GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBBI-580 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANANDEESHAR D.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 [V/C];
SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 [V/C])
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27/09/2017, PASSED IN MVC
NO.176/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.8,25,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN M.F.A. NO. 1905 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O: MEDIGESHI
MADHUGIRI TALUK -572 132,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE [V/C])
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
AND:
1 . SRI NARASIMHAPPA,
S/O. LATE RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/O: SIDDAGUNTAPPALI VILLAGE,
PENUGONDA TALUK,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHARA PRADESH STATE,
NOW R/O. MEDIGESHI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK- 572 132,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2 . THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HEAD OFFICE,
MUMBAI-400 013.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED MANAGER.
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE:
THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LAND MARK,
OPP. TB GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL,
DESHAPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI-581 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 [V/C];
SRI K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [V/C])
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.833/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
& MACT MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,07,060/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the judgment and
award passed in MVC No.176/2014 dated 27-9-2017 by
the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XIII,
Madhugiri and the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.833/2018 dated 01-10-2018 by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri.
2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal.
3. The owner of the offending vehicle is before this
Court in these appeals assailing the liability fastened upon
him by the Tribunals in respect of the accident dated
16.02.2014 at about 4.45 p.m. involving the tractor
trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-1730-1731.
4. In MVC No.176/2014, the petitioners are the wife
and mother of the deceased Manjunatha and in MVC
No.833/2016, the petitioner is the injured-Narasimhappa.
5. The case of the petitioners in both these cases is
that on 16-2-2014 at around 4-45 p.m. the deceased
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
Manjunatha and the injured- Narasimhappa were traveling
in a tractor trailer bearing Reg.No.KA.06.TA.1730-1731 as
loaders and unloaders. After unloading the materials at
Boda bande Palya while returning at Medigeshi village on
Madhugiri-Pavagada road, the driver of the said Tractor
Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
it capsized and caused the accident. Due to the impact,
deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa fell down
and crushed under the said tractor. They contended that
the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the said tractor trailer.
6. The deceased Manjunatha was aged about 38
years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. Though he was shifted to the Government
Hospital, Madhugiri immediately after the accident for
treatment, he could not survive.
7. The petitioner in MVC No.833/2016-Narasimhappa
who suffered crushed wound on the nasal septum central,
upper lip crushed skin loss, lacerated wounds on the
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
center of the forehead, left eye brow and lost few teeth
and there was also fracture of lower end of the right radius
and the head injuries. He was shifted to Government
Hospital, Madhugiri, wherein, he took treatment as
inpatient and later he took treatment at Sridevi Hospital,
Tumkuru.
8. After service of notice respondent Nos. 1 and 2
appeared before both the Tribunals through their counsels
and filed separate written statements denying the cause
and circumstances of the accident. They denied that
there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the
tractor trailer and that the compensation claimed by the
petitioners in both the petitions were exorbitant,
imaginary and not tenable in law. Respondent No.1
contended that he had insured the said vehicle with the
respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date
of the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay the
compensation. It was also contended that the driver of
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
the tractor was having a valid driving license as on the
date of the accident.
9. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended
that the deceased Manjunath and the injured
Narasimhappa were unauthorized passengers in the goods
vehicle i.e., tractor trailer. It was contended that the
offending vehicle is having only one seating capacity and
therefore, the terms and conditions of the policy were
violated and also that there is a delay of one day in filing
the complaint. It was contended that the
claimants/petitioners in collusion with the respondent No.1
and with the help of jurisdictional police have falsely
implicated the insurer of the vehicle.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the
Tribunals have framed appropriate issues regarding the
negligence as well as the liability in both the petitions.
11. In MVC No.176/2014, the petitioner No.1 was
examined as PW1 and one witness was examined on their
behalf as PW2 and 7 documents were produced and
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
marked as Exs.P1 to 7. Respondent No.2-Insurance
Company examined the RTO Madhugiri as RW1 and
marked two documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. The
respondent No.1 had not led any evidence in the matter.
12. In MVC No.833/2016, the injured petitioner
Narasimhappa was examined as PW1 and the Doctor who
assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1
to P19 were marked. The respondent No.2- Insurance
Company got examined its official as RW1 and Exs.R1 to
R6 were marked.
13. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunals
awarded the compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- to the
dependents of the deceased Manjunath in MVC
No.176/2014 and a sum of Rs.1,07,060/- to the injured
petitioner Narasimhappa in MVC No.833/2016 and
fastened the liability on the respondent No.1- owner of the
vehicle.
14. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed by both the Tribunals, the respondent No.1, owner
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
of the vehicle is before this Court in these appeals
assailing the said judgments.
15. On issuance of notice, respondent No.2-
Insurance company and the petitioners/claimants in both
the appeals appeared before this Court through their
counsels. Since the accident involved in both these cases
was one and the same, they are clubbed together and
heard together.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/owner of the offending vehicle in both the
appeals contends that the accident occurred on 16-2-2014
and the complaint was lodged before the concerned police
by the mother of the deceased Manjuantha on 17-2-2014.
Therefore, there is a delay and as such, the false
implication of the vehicle cannot be ruled out. He also
contended that the driver of the tractor trailer was having
driving licence to drive LMV, but not a transport vehicle.
He contends that the unladen weight of the tractor was
1800 kgs., and that of the trailer was 1100 kgs. and the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
total unladen weight was 2900 kgs., and as such, it was
well below the threshold of the heavy vehicle and
therefore, the driving licence to drive the LMV was
sufficient. He contends that Exs.P5 and Exs.R3 and 4
show that the vehicle is within the definition of the LMV
and therefore, the driving licence of the driver of the
tractor to drive a LMV has not violated any of the
provisions of the MV Act. In this regard, he has placed
reliance on the decision in the case of M.S. Bhati Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited1. He also relied
on the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited2 which held as
below:
"60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500
kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or
tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does
not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to
drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in
Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport
vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which
does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or
roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not
exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate
endorsement on the licence is required to drive a
(2019) 12 SCC 248
AIR 2017 SC 3668
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as
enumerated above. A licence issued under Section
10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54
of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form."
17. In this regard, he also relied on the decision in
the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance
Company Limited and others3, wherein, again it was
held that,
"when a person holds a permanent licence to
drive the tractor, merely because he was
driving the tractor which has trailer attached to
it and was being used for carrying goods at the
time of the accident, it cannot be said that the
tractor was being used for taking goods for
which the driver had no valid licence."
He also relied on the circular dated 16-04-2018
issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
which states as below:
"the transport vehicle and omnibus, the
gross weight of either of which does not exceed
7500 kgs., would be a light motor vehicle and
(2001) 8 SCC 56
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
also motor car or tractor or a road roller
having 'unladen weight' of which does not
exceed 7500 kgs., and holder of a driving
licence to drive class of 'light motor vehicle' as
provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to
drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500
kgs."
18. He also relied on the decision in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi
and others4 wherein, it was held that;
"the combination of the tractor trailer is
nothing short of a goods carriage and
therefore, when once it is held that this is
goods carriage vehicle by virtue of provision
of Section 147-II-1(1) of M.V. Act, passengers
or the loaders and unloaders are covered."
He also relied on the two unreported decisions of
this Court in the case of Umadevi and others Vs. The
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
ILR 2011 KAR 4139
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
Company Limited5 and in the case of Sri H.M.
Santhosh Vs. The New India Assurance Company
Limited6. He also relied on the decision in the case of
Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh7.
19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2- Insurance Company in both the appeals
contended that the chargesheet as well as the other police
papers produced by the petitioners show that deceased
Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the
tractor and not on the trailer. The cross- examination of
Narasimhappa shows that he was sitting on the mudguard
of the tractor and also the evidence clearly establish that
they were not the travelers on the trailer. Therefore, he
contends that when the seating capacity of the vehicle was
only one, they were not supposed to travel on the tractor
and as such, they become the unauthorized passengers on
the vehicle. He submits that both the Tribunals have come
to the conclusion that the deceased as well as the injured
MFA No.5249/2015 DD 2-12-2022
MFA Nos.8359/2018 C.W.MFA No.1976/2018 DD 6-4-2023
2017 AIAR (Civil)734
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
were sitting on the tractor and therefore, there was
violation of the conditions of the policy. He also contends
that the RTO has been examined in MVC No.176/2014
and he has stated that the driver of the tractor was having
the licence to drive a LMV. It is submitted by him that the
tractor become a transport vehicle when a trailer is
attached to it and therefore, it gets the character of the
transport vehicle for which there was no valid driving
licence for the driver.
20. He also submitted that a Full Bench decision of
this Court in the case of Gadhlingappa @ Gadhilinga
S/o Ulluru Mallappa Vs. K.Guleppa S/o Lingappa and
others8 empathetically lays down that the insurance
company need not cover the liability of the persons who
suffers injuries by traveling on the mudguard or any other
attachment fixed to the tractor. Therefore, he contends
that the Full Bench Decision of this Court is clear and
categorical in laying down the principles so far as the
MFA CROB 100001/2016 & Con.matters
DD 20-4-2021
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
travelers on the engine of the tractor is concerned. Hence,
he contends that the judgments passed by both the
Tribunals are proper and correct and the liability cannot be
fastened upon the insurance company.
21. In view of the above rival contentions, the
questions that arises are
A. Whether the driving licence to drive a LMV
would be sufficient enough to drive a tractor
trailer unit?
B. Whether the policy covers the passengers
traveling on the mudguard of the tractor,
the seating capacity of which was only one?
22. The first aspect is regarding the driving licence.
The decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and
others (supra), lays down that in view of the answer
given to the reference by the three Judges Bench of the
Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited's case, the licence to drive
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
a LMV would be sufficient enough to drive the tractor
trailer. In the said judgment, it was held as below:
"2. This Court has considered the question whether
the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive
tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and
also whether separate endorsement is required
authorising him to drive such a transport vehicle?
3. We have answered the question that the driver
having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive
such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no
necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since
tractor attached with the trolley was transport
vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence,
there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.
4. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to
reference by the three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd9
these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby
allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover
amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The
liability is held to be joint and several of the owner,
driver and insurer. No costs."
23. In the above decision, it is evident that the Apex
Court has also held that the decision in the case of
Mukund Dewangan (supra) would hold the field.
24. The decision in M.S. Bhati Vs. National
Insurance Company Limited (supra) notes that when
(2017) 14 SCC 663
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
the correctness of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan
(supra) has been referred to a larger Bench, unless a
different view is taken by the Apex Court, the law laid
down in Mukund Dewangan's case binds till such
pronouncement is made by the Apex Court. It was held
that as a matter of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court is
bound to follow the decision which continues to hold the
field which otherwise is decided by larger Bench.
25. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the
driver of the tractor trailer was having a licence to drive
LMV which was valid as on the date of the accident.
Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the tractor trailer,
the unladen weight of which was much below 7500 kgs.,
comes within the purview of LMV and therefore, the driver
was having a valid driving licence. Exs.R3 and R4 which
are the Registration Certificate extract of tractor trailer
and the Ex.R2 which is the extract of the driving licence in
MVC No.833/2016 show that there was no such violation
in respect of the driving licence. Hence, this submission of
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
the learned counsel for appellant holds good. Both the
Tribunals have taken the view that the driver has violated
the conditions of the policy, as he did not possess the
driving licence for goods vehicle. Para 35 of the judgment
in MVC No.833/2016 and para 22 of the judgment in MVC
No.176/2014 show that, the Tribunals came to the
conclusion that the driver was not having valid driving
licence. It is evident that both the Tribunals have not
bestowed the attention on the decision laid down in the
case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited's case. In that view of the matter, the
conclusions reached by the Tribunals that there was
violation of the conditions of the policy, that the driver was
not having valid driving licence, is not sustainable in law.
The licence to drive LMV is sufficient to drive the tractor
and trailer and as such, on that ground, the liability could
not have been fastened upon the appellant/owner.
26. The second question that needs to be considered
is, whether the deceased Manjunatha and the injured
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
petitioner Narasimhappa, were traveling on the tractor but
not on the trailer and therefore, the insurance company
can repudiate the liability.
27. The evidence of the injured petitioner
Narasimhappa in MVC No.833/2016 shows that on
16-2-2014 at about 4.45 p.m. he was proceeding in the
tractor trailer as a loader and unloader and loaded the
stones at Chandrabhavi village and unloaded the same at
Boda Bande Palya and while returning, the tractor capsized
and caused the accident; as a result, he sustained
grievous injuries and Manjunatha died in the accident. In
the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he
was sitting on the engine of the tractor. He again
reiterates that he was sitting on the wheel of the tractor
that is mudguard. Thus the evidence of petitioner-
Narasimhappa is clear in this regard. He was not sitting in
the body of the trailer of the tractor.
28. The evidence of PW1-Ratnamma in MVC No.176/
2014 shows that she was not an eye witness and as per
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
her information, her husband deceased Manjunatha was
stuck under the engine of the tractor. She also happens to
be the complainant before the police. The said complaint is
produced by her at Ex.P1. It shows that she visited the
spot immediately on hearing the incident and found that
the deceased was stuck under the tractor.
29. The other documents produced by the
petitioners in both these proceedings show that the
deceased Manjunatha as well as the injured Narasimhappa
were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The inquest
mahazar and statements are consistent in saying that they
were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. None of these
documents show that they were sitting in the body of the
trailer. Thus, the fact as emanates from the oral and
documentary evidence is that, the deceased Manjunatha
and injured Narasimhappa were traveling on the engine of
the tractor by sitting on the mudguard. They were not the
passengers on the body of the trailer. This fact cannot be
disputed in any way.
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
30. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 -Insurance company Sri O. Mahesh, has
relied upon the decision in the case of Gadhlingappa @
Gadhilinga S/o Ulluru Mallappa @ Yellappa and
another (supra) and connected matters and submitted
that in the said decision, a reference made by learned
Single Judge was answered by the Full Bench of this Court.
The questions that were referred to the Larger Bench were
as below:
"i) Whether a person traveling 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 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?"
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
31. The Full Bench answered the above references in
para 23 and 33 of the judgment which are as below:
"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 traveled 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 traveling on the tractor. Hence, the
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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
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
traveling on the mud-guard of the tractor is not required to
be covered by the statutory insurance as contemplated
under sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V.Act."
(emphasis by me)
32. In view of the above conclusive finding by the
larger Bench of this Court, a person who is traveling on
the mudguard or any other agricultural equipment fixed to
the tractor, is not covered under the statutory
requirement of Section 147 of the M.V. Act and as such,
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
the insurance company need not cover such risk. In the
light of the above judgment, it is evident that the liability
cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. As a
consequence, the liability has to be fastened on the owner
of the tractor i.e. the appellant herein.
33. The decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh
and others (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the
appellants, though pertains to tractor, it was not in respect
of the passenger sitting on the mudguard of the tractor.
The question involved was, whether it can be considered
as the goods vehicle requiring special endorsement in the
driving licence?.
34. The decision in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi and others (supra)
was rendered by a Division Bench and therefore, it cannot
be of any relevance when a three Judges Bench of this
Court has specifically answered the status of a passenger
sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Moreover, the said
decision was pertaining to the claim made under the
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923. Similarly, the
decision of this court in the case of Umadevi Vs.
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company (supra) is also concerning a petition filed under
the Workmens' Compensation Act and as such, it cannot
be made applicable.
35. So far as the decision in the case of
H.M.Santhosh Vs. New India Assurance company
Limited (supra) is concerned, it was a case in respect of
the loader in a goods lorry. Hence, it cannot be of any help
to the appellant herein.
36. Thus, it is evident that when the facts involved in
these cases clearly indicate that the deceased Manjunatha
as well as the injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the
mudguard of the tractor at the time of the accident, they
cannot be held to be the loaders and they are covered
under the Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules.
This aspect is considered by the Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Gadhilingappa (supra). It has reiterated the
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
view taken by the Apex Court in the case of The New
India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Darshana Devi
and others (supra). The evidence on record clearly show
that the deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa
were traveling on the engine of the tractor which they
were not supposed to. As such, the insurance company is
not liable to cover the risk of such passengers. Hence, the
impugned judgments, which fastened the liability on the
owner of the tractor cannot be interfered with.
37. So far as the quantum is concerned, the same is
not urged before this Court. The petitioners in both the
proceedings have not filed any appeals or any cross
objections raising the question of the quantum. Hence, the
appeals are devoid of any merits and are liable to be
dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeals filed by the owner of the
offending vehicle in MFA No. 9768/2017 and MFA
No.1905/2019 are dismissed.
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27457
MFA No. 9768 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019
The judgments and award passed in MVC
No.176/2014 and MVC No.833/2016 passed by
both the Tribunals are hereby confirmed.
The amount in deposit in both the appeals
shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunals
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
