[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Bailappa S/O Andappa Kuri on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4258
MFA No. 102554 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102554 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
TONTADARYA VEEDHYAPEET BUILDING,
NEAR ROTARY CIRCLE GADAG,
R/BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ANKOLA ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR,
KALABHAVAN DHARWAD, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI BAILAPPA S/O ANDAPPA KURI,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O: TOTAGANTI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
2. ANDAVVA @ ANNAPPA W/O BASAPPA,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: TOTAGANTI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI TRAILER NO.KA-26/TA-3805 TA-3806)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, ...RESPONDENTS
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
(BY SRI GS HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
CONNECTED WITH AWARD AND JUDGMENT MADE IN MVC NO.04/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT RON,
EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 30.06.2014
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4258
MFA No. 102554 of 2014
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 30.06.2014 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ron1 in MVC
no.04/2013, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri NR Kuppelur, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by Insurer challenging finding on
liability. It was submitted as per claimant that on 30.08.2011
claimant-Bailappa was returning after completion of agricultural
work on tractor and trailer bearing no.KA 26 TA 3805 and KA 26
TA 3806, by sitting on mudguard of tractor. Due to rash and
negligent driving of same by its driver, it dashed against road
side sign board and caused accident. Due to same, claimant
sitting on mudguard fell down and rear wheel of tractor ran over
his leg resulting in grievous injuries. Despite treatment he did
not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against owner and Insurer of tractor.
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4258
HC-KAR
3. Despite service of notice, respondent no.1-owner did
not appear. He was placed ex-parte. Only Insurer opposed claim
petition.
4. On contest, Tribunal framed issues and recorded
evidence. Claimant examined himself and Dr. Palled as PW1 and
PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P163. Respondents
did not lead evidence. On consideration, Tribunal held accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by its driver
and claimant was entitled for compensation of Rs.2,76,356/-
with interest from Insurer. Aggrieved thereby, Insurer was in
appeal.
5. It was submitted, even as per claimant's own version
and police investigation records, accident occurred while claimant
was traveling by sitting on mudguard of tractor. Regulation 28 of
Road Regulations, 1989, in force as on date of accident,
prohibited any person from traveling by sitting on mudguard of
tractor. Consequently, there was breach of terms and conditions
of policy. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in holding Insurer
liable.
6. Apart from above, police investigation records would
reveal that driver of tractor was prosecuted not only for rash and
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4258
HC-KAR
negligent driving but also for causing accident without
possessing valid and effective driving license. On said ground,
insurer could not have been held liable and sought for allowing
appeal.
7. On other hand, Sri GS Hulmani, learned counsel for
respondent no.1 opposed appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
impugned judgment, award and records.
9. From above, and since only Insurer is in appeal
challenging finding of Tribunal on liability, point that would arise
for consideration is:
Whether Tribunal was justified in fastening
liability on Insurer?
10. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident involving insured vehicle and claimant sustaining
injuries/disability/loss of earning capacity due to same.
Challenge is mainly on finding of Tribunal on liability. Same is on
two aspects; firstly, driver of tractor was charge sheeted for
causing accident by driving vehicle without necessary driving
license and secondly, permitting claimant to travel on mudguard
of tractor, though same was prohibited.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4258
HC-KAR
11. Perusal of claim petition averments, depositions as
well as police investigation records which were relied by
claimant, reveal that accident occurred when claimant was
traveling by sitting on mudguard of tractor.
12. Perusal of Regulation 28 of Road Regulations, 1989,
would prohibit carriage of passengers on mudguard of a tractor.
Besides, it is seen that driver of tractor was charge sheeted for
driving a tractor without driving license. Above would be breach
of terms and conditions of policy and as claimant is not a third
party, fastening liability on Insurer would not be justified.
13. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered
partly in affirmative as above. Consequently, following:
ORDER
(i) Insurer's appeal is allowed. Judgment
and award dated 30.06.2014 passed by
Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT,
Ron in MVC no.04/2013, is modified,
dismissing claim petition against Insurer
and holding owner liable to pay
compensation awarded by Tribunal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4258
HC-KAR
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
refunded to appellant.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SMM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15
