Karnataka High Court
Harisha vs Nadigara Murugendrappa on 3 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
MFA No. 7900 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7900 OF 2013 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
HARISHA
S/O. MALLESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
COOLIE, R/O. ECHALANAGENAHALLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NADIGARA MURUGENDRAPPA
S/O. RAJANNA, MAJOR
OWNER OF TRACTOR AND
Digitally
signed by TRAILOR BEARING REG. NO.KA-16-T-2173-74
KAVYA R R/O. SIDDAPURA
Location: CHITRADURGA TALUK SINCE
High Court of
Karnataka DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
1(A) RAJANNA S/O. NADIGARA
MURUGENDRAPPA
60 YEARS
SIDDAPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
MFA No. 7900 of 2013
HC-KAR
BRANCH OFFICE, B. D. ROAD
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
(V/O DATED 03.06.2025, NOTICE TO R1(A)
IS HELD SUFFICIENT))
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.9.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.264/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, (FAST TRACK COURT), CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award
dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.264/008.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2007 at
about 6.00 p.m., the appellant after attending his coolie work
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
was going home in tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-16-T-2173-
74. The said tractor met with an accident due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor. As a result of
which, he sustained the fracture of 1/3rd of the lower end of
the left tibia. He took treatment in the Government Hospital at
Chitradurga and spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical
expenses. He has been suffering from permanent disability. He
was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and earning
Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the said
accident, he lost his physical strength and became dependent.
With these reasons, he prayed to award the compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. Respondent No.1, who was a minor at the time of
filing of the objection, denied the contents of the claim petition
and also denied that claimant was travelling in the said tractor-
trailer. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
5. Respondent No.2/insurer filed a counter denying the
contention of the claim petition and further contended that its
liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
insurance and holding of a valid and effective driving licence by
the driver of the tractor-trailer.
6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination.
7. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of parties to the
proceedings. Thereafter, hearing the arguments answered the
issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed their claim
petition by the impugned judgment and award.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that fact
of the accident is not seriously disputed. A criminal case was
registered against the driver of tractor-trailer and he was
charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279
and 338 of the IPC. The said charge sheet has not been
challenged by the driver of the said vehicle or owner of the
vehicle. The Tribunal in its finding without considering the said
point, answered the issues in negative only on the ground that
he was a coolie working under respondent No.1(a) and the said
finding is incorrect.
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
10. Learned counsel further submits that even if the
insurance company is not liable; believing that he was
unauthorised passenger travelling in a goods vehicle but the
owner is liable to pay the compensation. The owner has not
explained in what capacity claimant was travelling in the said
vehicle as on the date of the incident. With these reasons, he
prayed to award reasonable compensation. He further
submitted that the claimant is poor and illiterate and he was
unable to examine a doctor to prove his disability. Considering
the materials available on record, a reasonable amount of
compensation be awarded.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that,
as per the contention of the claim petition, he was travelling in
the tractor-trailer, which is a goods vehicle and the policy of
insurance does not cover the risk of coolie. Therefore,
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. For the
sake of discussion, even if he is considered as a coolie, the
owner of the vehicle has not paid additional premium to cover
the risk of coolie. Respondent No.2 has produced a copy of the
policy at Ex.R1. Under these circumstances, respondent No.2 is
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
not at all responsible for payment of compensation and prayed
to dismiss the appeal against respondent No.2.
12. The following questions are arises for my
consideration is as under;
"1. Whether the Tribunal is erred in not
holding that accident had taken place due to
involvement of the offending vehicle and the
claimant had sustained injury in the said
accident?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum?
From whom payable?
3. What order or award?"
Re: Point No.1:-
13. PW-1 is a claimant. In his evidence he has
reiterated the contents of the claim petition. He has produced
the copy of the FIR, spot mahazer, wound certificate, IMV report
and charge sheet at Exs.P1 to P7. These documents corroborate
the contents of the claim petition and these documents are not
seriously challenged in the cross-examination of PW-1. Even in
the evidence of RW-1-(Rajanna), fact of the accident is not
disputed. First he contends that the claimant was not at all
working as a coolie and later admits that petitioner was working
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
as a collie under him. RW-2 is an officer of respondent No.2 and
in his evidence, he denied the case made out by the claimant.
In his cross-examination, he pleads ignorance as to in what
capacity the claimant was travelling in the said tractor-trailer.
These evidence prove that claimant met with an accident while
travelling in tractor-trailer and sustained injuries.
14. The Tribunal though in the judgment discussed that
the accident had taken place, but it answered the said issue in
negative and the said finding is incorrect. For the aforesaid
discussions, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
Re: Point No.2:-
15. PW-1 in his evidence stated about his injuries,
disability and medical expenses etc., and his facts were denied.
The wound certificate i.e, Ex.P.5 reveals that he has sustained
the injuries.
16. It is true that he has not produced supporting
materials to prove the said injuries. However, the injuries are
not seriously disputed and there is no cross-examination to
PW.1 in this regard. Ex.P.5 is issued by Government Hospital,
Chitradurga and on the basis of the said wound certificate, the
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
driver of the said tractor was charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. Therefore, it
could be accepted.
17. The claimant produced the medical records to show
that he had spent towards medical expenses. In his cross-
examination, he admits that in the Government hospital he was
treated free of cost. Therefore, he might not have incurred
expenses for treatment. Even in his evidence, he has not
disclosed that he was admitted as inpatient.
18. Undisputedly he was a coolie. He might have lost his
earning during laid-up period. He has not examined the Medical
Officer who had treated him, to prove his disability. Therefore,
he is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of
future earning capacity due to permanent disability. Due to the
said fractures, he might have lost some of the amenities
available to a healthy person. Considering all these facts and
circumstances of the case, he is entitled for global
compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
19. The claimant was travelling in a tractor-trailer. Ex.R1
shows that no extra premium was paid. Even though owner of
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
the vehicle disputes that claimant was a coolie working in the
said tractor, the owner has not examined the driver of the
tractor to show that without permission of the driver, he was
travelling in the said vehicle. Under these circumstances,
respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation. The claimant
is also entitled for interest on the said compensation amount
from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
Accordingly, above point No.2 answered partly in affirmative.
20. For the above said discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), Chitradurga, in MVC.No.264/2008
dated 28.09.2012 is set aside.
iii. The claim petition is allowed. Respondent
No.1 is directed to pay global compensation
of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant with the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:18615
HC-KAR
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till its realization.
iv. Claim against respondent No.2 is
dismissed.
v. Respondent No.1 shall deposit above said
amount with interest within a period of
eight weeks from the date of the award.
vi. The amount of compensation is meager.
Therefore, entire amount is ordered to be
released in favour of claimant on due
identification.
vii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to
trial Court.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
AMA
