[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Manager Hdfc General Insurance Co. ... vs Devaraj And Anr on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
MFA No. 200626 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200626 OF 2019 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER,
HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HDFC ERGO COMPANY, 1ST FLOOR,
VIRUPAKSHI KRUPA, OPPOSITE KIMS MAIN GATE,
P.B.ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI.
NOW REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS.CO. LTD., HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE 1. DEVARAJ S/O MUDUKAPPA TALAWAR,
Location: HIGH AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
COURT OF R/O. MEDIKINAL VILLAGE, TQ.LINGASUGUR,
KARNATAKA NOW R/ AT NIJALINGAPPA COLONY,
RAICHUR-584 101.
2. DEVAPPA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS & OWNER OF VEHICLE
BEARING NO.KA-36/TC-4180,
R/O. H.NO.316, MEDIKINAL VILLAGE,
TQ.LINGASUGUR, DIST.RAICHUR-584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
MFA No. 200626 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT:
11.01.2019 IN MVC.NO.246/2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT RAICHUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company
assailing the judgment and award dated 11.01.2019 in
MVC No.246/2017, on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Raichur (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'),
awarding compensation to the claimant.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties in the
appeal shall be referred to in terms of their status and
ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that, the claimant
was proceeding on Medikinal Thanda road in tractor
bearing registration No.KA-36/TC-4180, driven by one
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
Ningappa, belonging to respondent No.1 and at that time,
the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and as a result of the same, the
claimant has sustained injuries. Hence, the claimant has
preferred MVC No.246/2017 before the Tribunal seeking
compensation.
4. After service of notice, the respondents entered
appearance and filed detailed written statement, denying
the averments made in the claim petition. In order to
establish their case, the claimant has examined two
witnesses as PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked 10
documents as Exs.P1 to P10. The respondents adduced
evidence through RW.1 and RW.2 and marked three
documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal after
considering the material on record, by its judgment and
award dated 11.01.2019, awarded compensation of
Rs.2,26,680/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of claim petition till realization. Feeling
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
aggrieved by the same, the respondent - Insurance
Company before the Tribunal has preferred this appeal.
5. Heard Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company
and Sri Basavaraj R. Math, the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 - Claimant.
6. Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of
RW.1 would disclose that, there is no mentioning of the
tractor involved in the accident in the complaint or FIR and
therefore, the tractor has been falsely implicated.
Therefore, it is argued that, the said aspect of the matter
requires consideration in this appeal. It is also argued by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that, the
claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor in
question, which is a clear violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy and therefore, in terms of Section
134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the award of
compensation made by the Tribunal required to be
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
interfered with in this appeal. In order to buttress her
arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - Insurance Company places reliance on the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in case of
Gadhilingappa and Another vs. K.Guleppa and
Others reported in 2021 ACJ 2588 and submitted that,
fastening of the liability on the Insurance Company
required to be interfered with in this appeal.
7. Per contra, Sri Basavaraj R. Math, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1/claimant places
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.8278-8279/2018 in the case of Shivaraj
vs. Rajendra & Anohter, disposed of on 05.09.2018 and
in the case of Shivawwa and Another vs. The Branch
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited
reported in AIR 2018 SC 1640, wherein, in identical
circumstances, where the injury/death was on account of
the accident in the tractor and therefore, sought for pay
and recovery in the matter. It is also argued by the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
learned counsel for the claimant by referring to the policy
details mentioned at Ex.R3 and submitted that, the
appellant/Insurance Company has collected premium of
Rs.50/- towards the cleaner and therefore, it is contended
that, the impugned award made by the Tribunal required
to be confirmed in this appeal.
8. In the light of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute as to
the injuries caused to the claimant on account of the
accident occurred on 15.02.2017, wherein, the claimant
was travelling in a tractor bearing registration
No.KA-36/TC-4180. In the light of the grounds urged in
the appeal memo by the appellant, I have carefully
examined the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shivaraj (supra), wherein, at
paragraph No.9, it is held that the claimant was travelling
in the tractor as a passenger. It is also forthcoming from
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shivawwa (supra), wherein, the injured was standing on
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
the hook in between the tractor and trailer. In the
aforementioned cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
directed the Insurance Company therein to satisfy the
compensation to the claimant and thereafter, recover the
same from the owner of the vehicle in question.
9. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant places reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Gadhilingappa (supra), wherein, as per regulation 28,
the driver of the tractor is not permitted to carry any
person on the tractor including the third party to sit on the
mudguard. Though the judgment referred to by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to
substantiate the grounds urged in the appeal memo,
however, in view of the declaration of law made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, the
contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant/Insurance Company to absolve from liability,
cannot be accepted. However, Taking into consideration
the factual aspects on record, as the premium has been
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
collected by the Insurance Company as per Ex.R3, as to
"LL to Paid Driver &/or Conductor &/or Cleaner (IMT-28) ",
I do not find any material to interfere with the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal as to awarding
compensation to the claimant. Following the declaration
of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforementioned cases, I am of the view that the
appellant/Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the
award passed by the Tribunal and thereafter, recover the
same from respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
I. The appeal is hereby allowed in part.
II. The appellant - Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal to the claimant and
thereafter, recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle in question.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:393
HC-KAR
III. The amount in deposit, if any, be
transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
Ct:pk
