[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sunil Naika.O vs Krishna Naika on 18 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
MFA No. 2211 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2211 OF 2015 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SUNIL NAIKA .O,
S/O ONKARANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
COOLIE WORK,
R/O KENCHAPURA VILLAGE,
TUPPADAHALLI POST,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
NOW R/AT MOUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD,
MOUNESHWARA EXTN.,
NITUVALLI, NEW EXTENSION,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
PADMASHREE 1. KRISHNA NAIKA,
SHEKHAR S/O RAMA NAIKA,
DESAI AGED 40 YEARS,
Location: High DRIVER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER,
Court of NA KA-42/T-2749 & KA-16/T-4892,
Karnataka R/O SIHI NEERUKATTE VILLAGE,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577526,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. LOKESHAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OWNER OF TRACTOR
TRAILER NO KA-42/T-2749 &
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
MFA No. 2211 of 2015
HC-KAR
KA-16/T-4892, R/O KENCHAPURA VILLAGE,
TUPPADAHALLI POST,
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. B T JAYADEVAPPA S/O THIPPANNA
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAILER BEARING
NO KA-16/T-4892, R/O RANGAPURA VILLAGE
HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MELAGIRI PLAZA,
OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC 'B' BLOCK,
DAVANAGERE-577 001.
5. KALEGOWDA
S/O MARI KALEGOWDA
MAJOR
OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING
NO KA-42/T-2749
R/O KOUSHALA SANDA GRAMA
KANAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R4,
V/O DTD: 21.02.2018, NOTICED TO R1 AND R3 IS D/W,
R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED14.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.828/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MEMBER MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
MFA No. 2211 of 2015
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
30.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the
judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 passed in MVC
No.828/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and
Member MACT-IV, Davanagere for enhancing the
compensation and fix the liability on the fourth respondent
Insurance company.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri Shashidhar R.,
learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Manjula
N.Tejaswi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The
ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the
sake of convenience.
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.07.2010
at about 12.00 noon petitioner/Sunil Naika had gone for
coolie work to fill the soil in the tractor-trailer bearing
No.KA-42/T-2749 and KA-16/T-4892. While proceeding in
the said vehicle from Betadurkere towards Devarahosahalli
village, driver of the said tractor trailer drove the said
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the
accident, due to which petitioner fell down and sustained
grievous injury on his right leg, thigh and there was
fracture of elbow and injuries on other parts of the body.
Immediately he was shifted to Bapuji hospital, Davanagere
wherein he was inpatient from 18.07.2010 to 30.08.2010.
Respondent No.1 is the driver, Respondent No.3 is the
owner of the trailer and respondent No.4 is the insurer of
the trailer. Insurance policy is in force at the time of the
accident. Therefore, respondents are jointly entitled to pay
the compensation. Hence he filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
4. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on
record, granted an amount of Rs.50,900/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of petition till
deposit.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant
preferred this appeal and learned counsel for the appellant
mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the
liability on the owner of the vehicle though the policy was
in force as on the date of accident and it covered the
liability of the coolie traveling in the vehicle. He further
contended that meager amounts are granted under all the
heads. He was inpatient for 43 days. Though the doctor
assessed the disability at 35%, the Tribunal has taken only
at 5%. Since the driver of the offending vehicle is having
license to drive the tractor, the Tribunal held that the
driver of the offending vehicle has got valid and effective
driving license and fixed the liability on the owner. He
therefore requested for modification of the judgment.
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed objections stating
that liability is subject to production of valid driving
licence, RC and Insurance policy terms and conditions. It
is further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle is
having valid driving licence. Respondent No.2 is a
bonafide purchaser of Tractor bearing No.KA 42/T 2749
and KA 16/T 4892 from true owner Kalegowda, S/o Mari
Kalegowda, as such said Kalegowda is necessary and
property party to this case.
7. Respondent No.4 has filed objections stating
that the petitioner was working as coolie on 18.07.2010 in
the tractor belonging to respondent No.2 and at that time
driver of the tractor trailer No.KA-42/T 2749 and KA
16/T4892 drove the same in rash and negligent manner
and caused the accident. The tractor bearing No.KA-42/T
2749 was not insured with respondent No.4 at the time of
accident. The trailer bearing No.KA-16/T 4892 was
insured along with tractor bearing No.KA 16 T 4891 with
respondent No.3. The trailer cannot be propelled without
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
the aid of the tractor. Since the tractor involved in the
accident was not insured with respondent No.4,
respondent No.4 is not liable to pay compensation. The
alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent
driving of driver of tractor bearing No.KA 42/T 2749 and
hence the owner and insurer of the said tractor are
necessary parties and the petition is bad for nonjoinder of
necessary parties. Respondent No.1 did not possess valid
licence to drive the tractor-trailer but he was possessing
licence only to drive LMV (tractor). Respondent No.2 has
entrusted his vehicle to respondent No.1 knowing fully well
that respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective
licence, thereby violated the policy conditions. Therefore,
respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation.
Charge sheet is filed against respondent No.1 Krishna
Naika.
8. Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and the
doctor as PW.2 Orthopedic Surgeon. Ex.P4 is the wound
certificate which shows that the petitioner sustained
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
fracture of right shaft femur. He complained pain in right
thigh, fever on and off difficulty in walking long distance.
On examination limping, surgical scar present over right
thigh, sinus present, pus discharge, tenderness present
deformity present on right knee, stiffness present with
flexin 20 degree, painful and restrict. Considering the
clinical, radiological and functional factors, the doctor
opined that petitioner has got 35% disability and issued
certificate under Ex.P12. As per Ex.P4 petitioner is having
swelling in the middle thigh and abnormal mobility and
tenderness present in the right thigh and displacement of
middle one-third of shaft of right femur.
9. The Tribunal has taken the disability at 5% and
his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- It was observed that
petitioner was aged 19 years and multiplier was taken as
16. The petitioner met with the accident on 18.07.2010,
as such notional income has to be taken at Rs.5,500/- per
month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal
Services Authority and multiplier has to be taken as 18.
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
The doctor assessed the disability at 35%, one third of the
same comes to 12%. Hence loss of future earning
capacity comes to Rs.27,00,000/- (12500 X 12 X 18) and
12% of Rs.27,00,000/- comes to Rs.3,24,000/-.
10. Petitioner was hospitalized for 43 days. He
filed medical bills to the extent of Rs.34,026/-. But the
Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- on the ground that
some of the medical bills are not supported by
prescriptions. Considering the nature of injuries and the
period of hospitalization, this Court finds it reasonable to
award Rs.34,026/- towards medical expenses. Further,
petitioner is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards
transportation.
11. Considering the nature of injuries, petitioner is
entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Petitioner could
not have worked for at least 4 months due to the injuries
sustained by him. Hence he is entitled for a sum of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
Rs.22,000 (5500 X4) under the head loss of income during
laid up period.
12. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is enhanced from Rs.50,900/- to Rs.4,60,026/- along
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as per the table below:
Amount
Sl.Nos. Particulars
in Rs.
1 Future loss of earning 3,24,000/-
capacity
2 Medical expenses 34,026/-
3 Transportation 30,000/-
4 Pain and suffering 30,000/-
5 Loss of amenities 20,000/-
6 Loss of income during laid up 22,000/-
period
Total 4,60,026/-
13. Respondent No.1 is the driver of tractor and
trailer bearing No.KA-42/T-2749 and KA-16/T-4892 and
Respondent No.2 is owner of the tractor bearing No.KA-
42/T 2749. Respondent No.3 is owner of the trailer
bearing No.KA 16/T-4892 and Respondent No.4 is the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
insurer of the said trailer. Respondent No.5 is the previous
owner of tractor bearing No.KA-42/T2749. R5 remained
ex-parte.
14. The tractor bearing No.KA-16/T-4891 and trailer
bearing No. KA-16/T-4892 are insured. But at the time of
the accident, the trailer No.KA-16/T-4892 was tagged
along with tractor bearing No.KA-42 T-2749 and the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T-2749. But the said tractor
is not insured. The driver of the tractor produced his DL
under Ex.D10 and it shows that he has license to drive
LMV (tractor). Hence he has no driving license to drive the
tractor and trailer.
15. RW.4/Administrative officer of
respondent/insurance company clearly stated that tractor
bearing No.KA-42 T-2749 is not insured with their
company. But, trailer bearing No.KA-16/T-4892 is insured.
As the tractor involved in the accident was not insured
with them, they are not liable to pay the compensation.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
Respondent No.3 is owner of the trailer No. KA-16/T-4892.
Ex.R4 is the copy of the Insurance policy for the tractor
bearing No.KA-16/T-4891. It is stated that as per
Ex.R2/certificate of registration relating to Vehicle No.KA-
42 T 2749, one Kalegowda, S/o Marikalegowda, R/o
Ramanagar District was the owner and later it was
transferred in the name of Respondent No.2 on
03.04.2010. Accident took place on 18.07.2010. Therefore
as on the date of accident, respondent No.2 is the owner
of the tractor bearing No.KA 42/T-2749. Respondent No.2
filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief as RW.2
and admitted that he is the owner of the tractor. He
further stated that he engaged respondent No.1 for driving
the tractor along with the trailer and for filling soil in the
tractor trailer at his land. He further stated that on that
day there was no accident, he never called petitioner for
coolie work and the petitioner has filed false case against
him. Respondent No.2 has not produced copy of the
insurance policy relating to the tractor bearing No.KA-42-
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
T-2749. The Tribunal held that as there is no policy,
respondent No.2/owner of the tractor bearing No.KA-42-T-
2749 and respondent No.3/owner of the trailer bearing No.
KA-16/T-4892 are liable to pay the compensation.
Accordingly, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay the
compensation, but R1 to R3 are jointly are liable to pay
the compensation. It is nowhere mentioned as to why the
trialer bearing No.KA-16/T-4892 was tagged on to the
tractor bearing No.KA 42 T 2749 when both the tractor
KA-16/T-4891 and trailer KA-16/T-4892 belonged to
respondent No.3 and both of them were insured.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a
citation reported in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
D. Laxman and others1 in which it was held that motor
vehicle includes any mechanically propelled vehicle
adopted for use on roads irrespective of the source of
power and it includes trailer attached to the tractor not
covered by insurance policy. Tractor and trailer requires
ILR 2006 Kar 4355
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
registration separately in order to claim compensation
under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Trailer is also
required to be insured under Section 146 of the Act. The
coolies carried in a trailer which is not covered by
insurance policy, insurance company is not liable to pay
any compensation.
17. She relied on another citation in Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd vs. Smt.
Honnamma and others reported in SLP (Civil)
No.2135/2023 in which it was held that trailer has to be
separately registered with the Insurance company to make
it liable.
18. Appellant's counsel relied upon a citation in
Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others
reported in 2015 9 SCC 273 in which it was held as
follows:
"There is a difference between contributory
and composite negligence. In the case of
contributory negligence, a person who has
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
himself contributed to the accident cannot claim
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in
the accident to the extent of his own negligence.
Extent of his negligence is required to be
determined as damages recoverable by him in
respect of the injuries have to be reduced in
proportion to his contributory negligence.
However, in the case of composite negligence, a
person who has suffered has not contributed to
the accident but due to the outcome of
combination of negligence of two or more other
persons. In such case, the plaintiff/claimant is
entitled to sue both or any one of the joint
tortfeasors and to recover the entire
compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is
joint and several.
19. It was finally held that in case of composite
negligence claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of
the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire
compensation as liability of the joint tortfeasors is joint
and several etc.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
20. He relied on another citation in Nagashetty vs.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd2 in which it was held as
follows:
"Merely because a trailer is added either to a
tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not
make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport
vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a
tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid
driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor
vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to
drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a
trailer is attached to it and some goods are
carried in it. In other words, a person having a
valid driving licence to drive a particular category
of vehicle does not become a disabled to drive
that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to
that vehicle.
21. In this case there is no dispute regarding the
accident and involvement of the tractor bearing No.KA 42
T/2749 and trailer bearing NO.KA 16/T-4892. But, the
(2001)8 SCC 56
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
trailer is insured with respondent No.4 and tractor is not
insured. However, accident occurred on 18.07.2010 when
tractor bearing No.KA 42 T/2749 was proceeding along
with the trailer No.KA 16 T/4892. As such the charge sheet
is filed against driver of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T
2749. It is contented that the driver of the tractor is only
having LMV tractor driver licence as per Ex.D10.
Therefore, the argument of the insurance company that he
has no valid driving license cannot be accepted.
22. Initially when respondent No.5-Kalegowda was
owner of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T 2749, but he
transferred it in the name of Respondent No.2 on
03.04.2010, i.e., prior to the accident. Therefore this
Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct
respondent No.4/Insurance company of respondent No.3
to deposit the entire amount as the trailer was insured
with them. The entire compensation of Rs.4,60,026/- shall
be deposited by the respondent No.4/Insurance company
as the trailer is insured with them. However, the Insurance
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
company is at liberty to recover 50% of the compensation
from Respondent No.2/owner of the tractor bearing No.KA
42 T/2749 as there was no insurance for the said tractor.
On such deposit petitioner is permitted to recover entire
amount along with interest accordingly.
23. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
14.08.2014 passed in MVC No.828/2011 on
the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
Member MACT - IV, Davanagere is
modified.
iii) The claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.4,60,026/- along with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till the date
of realization, instead of Rs.50,900/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
iv) Respondent No.4/Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation of
Rs.4,60,026/- along with the interest at
the rate of 6% within one month from the
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:16445
HC-KAR
date of this order. However, respondent
No.4/Insurance company is at liberty to
recover 50% of the compensation from
Respondent No.2/owner of the tractor
bearing No.KA 42 T/2749 as there was no
insurance for the said tractor.
v) On such deposit petitioner is permitted to
recover entire amount along with interest
accordingly.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
AKC
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62
