Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, The National vs Shanmukhappa S/O Guddappa Badiger on 27 November, 2023
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
MFA No. 23132 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 23133 of 2011
MFA No. 23134 of 2011
MFA No. 23135 of 2011
MFA No. 23136 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23132/2011(MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23133/2011(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23134/2011(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23135/2011(MV)
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23136/2011(MV)
IN MFA.NO.23132/2011:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, OPP: P.B.ROAD,
HUBBALLI, NOW R/BY ITS ADMIN OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GUDADEPPA S/O. NINGAPPA KUDRIHAL,
AGE:52, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
R/O: MAROL VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUK,
NOW AT KURUBAGERI, RANEBENNUR,
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.12.12
13:17:11 +0530
DIST: HAVERI.
2. CHANDRASHEKARA S/O. TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF THE T.T. UNIT
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/T-7629 AND 7630,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUKA.
3. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE,
IN HAVERI TALUK, DIST: HAVERI.
(OWNER OF T.T. UNIT BEARING REGISTRATION
NO.KA-27/R-7629 AND 7630).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
MFA No. 23132 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 23133 of 2011
MFA No. 23134 of 2011
MFA No. 23135 of 2011
MFA No. 23136 of 2011
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.501/2007 AND ETC.,
IN MFA.NO.23133/2011:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
SUJATHA COMPLEX, OPP: P.B.ROAD,
HUBBALLI, NOW R/BY ITS ADMIN OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REVANAPPA
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA MAILARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE, TALUK: HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI, NOW AT KURUBAGERI,
RANEBENNUR, DISTL HAVERI.
2. CHANDRASHEKARA S/O. TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF THE T.T. UNIT
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.
KA-27/T-7629 AND 7630,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUKA.
3. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUK,
DIST: HAVERI. (OWNER OF T.T. UNIT BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/R-7629 AND 7630).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.502/2007 AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
MFA No. 23132 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 23133 of 2011
MFA No. 23134 of 2011
MFA No. 23135 of 2011
MFA No. 23136 of 2011
IN MFA.NO.23134/2011:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATHA COMPLEX,
OPP: P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI,
NOW R/BY ITS ADMIN OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NINGAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA HUCHCHAMMANAVAR,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE, TALUK: HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O. TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF THE T.T. UNIT
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.
KA-27/T-7629 AND 7630,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUKA.
3. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
S/O TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUK,
DIST: HAVERI. (OWNER OF T.T. UNIT BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/R-7629 AND 7630).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.503/2007 AND ETC.,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
MFA No. 23132 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 23133 of 2011
MFA No. 23134 of 2011
MFA No. 23135 of 2011
MFA No. 23136 of 2011
IN MFA.NO.23135/2011:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATHA COMPLEX,
OPP: P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI,
NOW R/BY ITS ADMIN OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANKUKHAPPA
S/O. GUDDAPPA BADIGER,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE/HAMAL,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE,
TALUK: HAVERI,
NOW AT KURUBAGERI, RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O. TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF THE T.T. UNIT
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.
KA-27/T-7629 AND 7630,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUKA.
3. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
S/O TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUK,
DIST: HAVERI. (OWNER OF T.T. UNIT BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/R-7629 AND 7630).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
MFA No. 23132 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 23133 of 2011
MFA No. 23134 of 2011
MFA No. 23135 of 2011
MFA No. 23136 of 2011
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.504/2007 AND ETC.,
IN MFA.NO.23136/2011:
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
SUJATHA COMPLEX,
OPP: P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NINGAPPA
S/O. HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANTHAPPA SHIDDAPUR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLLIE/HAMAL,
R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE, TALUK: HAVERI,
NOW AT KURUBAGERI,
RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
2. CHANDRASHEKARA S/O. TIRAKAPPA GADDAD,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC:DRIVER OF THE T.T. UNIT
BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-27/T-7629
AND 7630, R/O: GUDUR VILLAGE,
IN HAVERI TALUKA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.H.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, RANEBENNUR IN MVC NO.505/2007 AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
MFA No. 23132 of 2011
C/W MFA No. 23133 of 2011
MFA No. 23134 of 2011
MFA No. 23135 of 2011
MFA No. 23136 of 2011
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the insurance company
questioning the liability fastened on it.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.02.2007 at
about 12 noon the claimants have loaded their cotton bails
in tractor trailer unit bearing No.KA-27/T-7629 and T-
7630. As per the direction of the owner of the tractor
trailer and they were traveling in the said tractor trailer as
a coolie/hamal from Gudur village to Haveri APMC Market
for unloading the same at APMC Market Haveri and while
traveling so, the driver of tractor trailer drove the same
with high speed and in rash and negligent manner, caused
accident. Due to which, the tractor trailer toppled down.
Hence, the claimants sustained injuries. Accordingly, the
claimants have filed claim petition and the tribunal has
awarded compensation by fastening liability on the
insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company is
in the appeal questioning liability fixed on it on the ground
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
that the claimants are unauthorized persons traveled in
the tractor trailer.
3. Heard argument from both sides and perused
the records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance
company submitted that the claimants were traveled as an
unauthorized person in the tractor trailer, as a tractor
trailer was used for commercial purpose, but it is not
permissible as per terms and conditions of the insurance
policy since the tractor trailer is only for the purpose of
using agriculture purpose and transportation of agricultural
goods of owner himself, but not others. Therefore,
submitted the insurance policy is special type of
agricultural insurance policies issued for tractor trailer for
the purpose of agricultural purpose and transportation of
agricultural goods of the owner himself, but not others,
but, the tractor trailer is used for commercial purpose of
transportation of cotton bails of some others. Therefore, it
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
is used for commercial purpose and the claimants were
unauthorized passengers. Hence, the insurance company
is not liable to indemnify the owner and to pay
compensation. In support of his submission, he places
reliance on the division bench of this Court in MFA
No.682/2006 dated 27.05.2011 in the case of M/s United
India Insurance Company Ltd. Sagar, vs. Nagavenamma
w/o late G. Nagaraja and others (Nagavenamma's case).
5. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal and
exonerate the appellant to pay compensation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
owner of the tractor trailer submitted that the tractor
trailer was used for agricultural purpose of cotton bails and
it has not been used for commercial purpose and the risk
under the insurance policy is clearly covered. Hence,
justified the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.
Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
7. It is the case of the claimants that all were
traveling in the tractor trailer by loading their own cotton
bails and sustained injuries in the accident. Complaint-
Ex.P.1 is given stating that the claimants were travelling in
the tractor trailer along with the cotton bails which are
belonging to them. PW.1 and PW.2 have stated in their
evidence in examination-in-chief that they are pedestrian
and the tractor trailer had dashed them. The medical
records which are wound certificate, disability certificate
have revealed that the claimants have admitted hospital
with a history of falling from the tractor. Therefore in this
context, when the document evidence speaks as discussed
above proved that the claimants have traveled in the
tractor trailer along with their own cotton bails. Therefore,
the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that they were
pedestrian cannot be believed. Also, it is proved that the
claimants have loaded their cotton bails on their tractor.
Hence, the owner has not produced agricultural produce of
cotton bails. But the claimants were transporting their
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
cotton bails to the APMC market, Haveri. Admittedly, the
Ex.R.1 is the insurance policy issued as a miscellaneous
and special type of vehicle policy package. Therefore, the
offending vehicle tractor trailer is insured for a purpose of
agricultural purpose and transportation of agricultural
produce of the owner himself. In the FIR-Ex.P.1,
complaint-Ex.P.2, PW.1 has not complained before the
police stating that he and others have loaded cotton bails
on the tractor trailer which is cultivated in their own field.
Therefore, there is no whisper in the complaint that is
lodged at very initial point of time that the claimants were
working as a coolies/hamals under the employment of the
owner of the tractor trailer. Therefore, what the claimants
have pleaded in the claim petition that they were working
as a coolies/hamals under the owner of the tractor trailer
and even transporting the agricultural produce of the
owner of tractor trailer is not proved, rather it is proved
that the claimants themselves were transporting cotton
bails which are harvested in their own land by hiring the
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
tractor trailer. Therefore, there is violation of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy is proved. Therefore, the
matter is clearly covered by the division bench of this
Court in Nagavenamma's case (supra). Therefore, under
Ex.R.1-insurance policy, risk of other persons and also
transportation of goods of other persons is not covered.
Therefore, it is proved that the tractor trailer is used for
commercial purpose of transportation of cotton bails of the
claimants. Hence, insurance company is not liable to
indemnify the owner and to pay compensation to the
claimants. Therefore, the tribunal has committed error in
fastening liability on the insurance company and the same
is liable to be modified. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeals filed by the insurance company
are allowed.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
ii) The judgment and award passed in MVC
No.501/2007, dated 04.11.2010, by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ranebennur, stands modified.
iii) The appellant-insurance company is
exonerated from payment of compensation to
the claimants by indemnifying the owner of
tractor trailer. The owner of tractor trailer
alone shall pay compensation to the claimants
as determined by the tribunal.
iv) The amount in deposit shall be refunded to
the insurance company.
v) Upon perusing the judgment of the Tribunal,
it appears that it is directive in nature. For
verifying this aspect as canvassed by the
learned counsel for the appellant, the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:13861
Registrar (Vigilance) shall check out with the
stenographer of that relevant time who took
the dictation upon seeking/perusing the script
note pad and computer unit. Let a copy of
this order be forwarded to the Registrar
General so as to make enquiry in this regard
through Registrar (Vigilance).
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP
