SMT MAYAVVA W/O SADASHIV KURI vs SHRI SUNIL S/O BANASIDAR VARAKAD
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100098 OF 2026 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MAYAVVA W/O. SADASHIV KURI.
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIROL, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
2. SMT. SUMITRA
W/O. VITTAL MAHALINGAPUR,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIROL, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
3. SMT. SAVITA
W/O. MAHADEV AMAJAVAGOL,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BANDIGANI,
TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
4. SHRI. SAHADEV S/O. SADASHIV KURI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIROL, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
5. SMT. SHILPA W/O. KADAPPA GULABAL
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: LINGNUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
6. SHRI. ASHOK S/O. SADASHIV KURI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: SHIRANAL, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HANMANT LATUR, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
AND:
1. SHRI SUNIL S/O. BANASIDAR VARAKAD
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR
VEHICLE REG NO. MH-37/L-9005
R/O. AMALA, TQ: DARUR,
DIST: BEED
MAHARASHTRA STATE-431128.
2. BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
KALBURGI SQUARE, DESHAPANDE NAGAR,
DESAI CIRCLE HUBBALLI, TQ: DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD.
Pin: 580020.
3. KADAPPA S/O. SHANKAR MALI
ST
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF 1 TRAILER
ND
REG NO. KA-23/TA-9869 2 TRAILER
REG NO. KA-23/TA-9869
(CORRECT NO KA-23/TA-9868)
R/O: YADRAVI, TQ: RAYABAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591317.
…RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS SERVED;
BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION
BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY COURT OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR VEHICLE TRIBUNAL AND MEMBER, MOTOR
VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUDHOL, IN MVC
NO.225/2023 DATED 21.06.2025 AND FIX THE ENTIRE LIABILITY ON
PRESENT RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.G.SHANTHI
CAV JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.06.2025
in MVC No.225/2023 passed by the Civil Judge and MACT,
1
Mudhol , the petitioners before the Tribunal filed this appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation and challenging the
liability.
2. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranks
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.12.2022 at
about 6.45 p.m., the husband of petitioner No.1 by name
Sadashiv Kuri was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing
2
registration No.KA-48/S-6608 near Shirol cross on Mudhol-
Jamakhandi State Highway. At that time, the driver of tractor
3
bearing registration No.MH-37/L-9005 and trailer bearing
4
Nos.KA-23/TA-9869 and KA-23/TA-9868 parked it in the
middle of the road without any indication and negligently. The
rider of the above said motorcycle dashed to the said tractor
1
For short, ‘the Tribunal’
2
For short, ‘the motorcycle’
3
For short, ‘the tractor’
4
For short, ‘the trailer’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
trailer and caused the accident. Due to the said impact, the
rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries and died on
the spot.
4. The petitioners further contended that, prior to the
accident, the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., by doing
agriculture work and thereby maintaining his family. Due to
the sudden death of Sadashiv, the petitioners have lost their
bread earner as they were depending on the income of
deceased. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed claim petition
before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
5. On filing of the petition, notices have been issued to
the respondents. They appeared through their counsel and filed
objections contending that the facts narrated in the claim
petition are false and not enforceable under law
6. Respondents No.1 and 3 further contended that the
respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor, and respondent
No.3 is the owner of the trailer; the owners of the said vehicles
have denied that the alleged accident was occurred due to the
fault of the driver, but the accident occurred entirely due to the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
fault of the deceased, who was the rider of the motorcycle.
They denied that the deceased was severely injured in the
accident and died on the spot as stated in claim petition.
Further stated that at the time of accident, the tractor was
insured with respondent No.2 and the driver had a valid driving
license. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition
against respondents No.1 and 3.
7. Respondent No.2 contended that, the alleged
accident was due to the negligence of the rider of the
motorcycle and the driver of the tractor followed the rules of
the road while driving the tractor, but the rider of the
motorcycle rode the motorcycle with excessive speed and hit
the tractor trailer. It denied that the petitioners are dependants
on the income of the deceased. Accordingly, prayed for
dismissal of the petition against respondent No.2.
8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner No.1 examined
as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P.1 to P.13. On
behalf of respondents, one witness has been examined as RW1
and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
9. On hearing the arguments, the Tribunal partly
allowed the claim petition of the petitioners by awarding
compensation under the following heads along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization:
Sl.
Heads Amount in Rs.
No.
1 Loss of dependency 15,79,116/-
2 Loss of consortium 52,000/-
3 Loss of estate 19,150/-
4 Funeral expenses 19,150/-
16,70,116/-
10. The Tribunal further held that the respondents No.2
and 3 liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in the ratio
50-50 along with accrued interest within 30 days from the date
of the order.
11. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and
also the liability fixed on respondent No.3/owner of the trailer,
the petitioners filed this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,79,116/- towards loss
of dependency by considering the income of the deceased at
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
Rs.14,500/- p.m., with 10% future prospectus, though the
deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., and the Tribunal has
awarded meager compensation under various heads, which are
deserves to be enhanced. Further, the Tribunal has fixed the
liability at 50% on insurer of tractor and another 50% on the
owner of trailers even though the tractor is insured with
respondent No.2. Accordingly, prayed for enhancement of
compensation and to saddle the liability on respondent
No.2/insurer of the tractor.
13. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company argued that the tractor and trailer are
separate entities as it shall be registered and insured
separately. The liability of the Insurance Company is restricted
to the extent of the vehicle insured under the policy and the
Tribunal rightly fastened 50% of the liability on the Insurance
Company and the remaining 50% on the owner of the trailer,
who has not preferred any appeal. Accordingly, prayed to
dismiss the appeal.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
14. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
available on record. The points that would arise for
consideration by this Court are as follows:
(i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the
liability to the extent of 50% on the
respondent No.3/owner of the trailer to pay
the compensation to the petitioners?
(ii) Whether the petitioners prove that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
inadequate and it deserves to be modified?
(iii) What order?
15. Points framed by this Court for consideration are
answered as follows:
Point No.(i) : In the affirmative.
Point No.(ii) : Partly in the affirmative.
Point No.(iii): As per the final order, for the
following:
O
16. Regarding Point No.(i): n 27.12.2022 at about
6.45 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle and
when he reached near Shirol cross on Mudhol-Jamakhandi
State Highway, the driver of tractor trailer parked it in the
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
middle of the road without any indication and negligently for
unloading the sugarcane. The accident is not in dispute. The
petitioners have produced the copy of FIR, complaint, spot
panchanama, IMV report, PM report and charge sheet which are
marked as Exs.P1 to P6.
17. It is the contention of the petitioners that the
Tribunal has wrongly saddled the liability to the extent of 50%
on the owner of the trailer. According to the petitioner the
Tribunal ought to have fastened the entire liability on the
Insurance Company to pay compensation.
18. On perusal of the evidence it indicates that the rider
of the motorcycle dashed to the tractor trailer which was
stationed in the middle of the road without any indication. The
rider of the motorcycle was sustained injuries and succumbed
to the injuries. The police have investigated the matter and
filed the charge sheet arraigning the driver of the tractor trailer
as accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections
5
283, 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 187,
5
For short, ‘IPC’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
6
146 read with Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
The rider of the motorcycle as accused No.2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC and Sections 181,
129 read with Sections 177, 146D and 196 of the MV Act. The
owner of the trailer shown as accused No.3 for the offences
punishable under Section 146 read with Section 196 of the MV
Act. Further the police have filed abated charge sheet against
the rider of the motorcycle.
19. The legal representatives of the deceased filed
claim petition claiming compensation before the Tribunal and
the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.16,70,116/- and
fastened the liability on the insurer of the tractor and on the
owner of the trailer to the extent of 50:50.
20. In the present case, the owner of the tractor and
the owner of the trailer are different persons. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine the statutory provisions governing the
registration and insurance of the tractor and trailer and the
liability of the respective owners and the Insurance Company.
6
For short, ‘MV Act’
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
21. Section 2(28) of the MV Act reads as under:
“motor vehicle or vehicle means any
mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for
use upon roads whether the power of
propulsion is transmitted thereto from an
external or internal source and includes a
chassis to which a body has not been
attached and a trailer; but does not include a
vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle
of a special type adapted for use only in a
factory or in any other enclosed premises or
a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted
with engine capacity of not exceeding
[twenty-five cubic centimeters]”
22. Section 2(46) of the MV Act is reads as under:
“trailer” means any vehicle, other than a
semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or
intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle;”
23. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions
indicates that the tractor and trailer are distinct vehicles for the
purposes of the relevant statutory requirements. So, every
motor vehicle or a vehicle should be compulsorily registered
before the concerned authorities and the vehicle should cover
with a policy of insurance.
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
24. Section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 reads as
under;
“3. Registration: No person shall, after the
commencement of this Act, begin to carry on
any class of insurance business in India and
no insurer carrying on any class of insurance
business in India shall, after the expiry of
three months from the commencement of
this Act, continue to carry on any such
business, unless he has obtained from the
Authority a certificate of registration for the
particular class of insurance business:
Provided that in case an insurer who
was carrying on any class of insurance
business in India at the commencement of
this Act, failure to obtain a certificate of
registration in accordance with the
requirements of this sub-clause shall not
operate to invalidate any contract of
insurance entered into by him if before such
date as may be fixed in this behalf by the
Central Government by notification in the
Official Gazette he has obtained that
certificate:
Provided further that a person or
insurer, as the case may be, carrying on any
class of insurance business in India, on or
before the commencement of the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority Act,
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
1999, for which no registration certificate
was necessary prior to such commencement,
may continue to do so for a period of three
months from such commencement or, if he
had made an application for such registration
within the said period of three months, till
the disposal of such application:
Provided also that any certificate of
registration, obtained immediately before the
commencement of the Insurance Regulatory
and Development Authority Act, 1999, shall
be deemed to have been obtained from the
Authority in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.”
25. It mandates the existence and extent of insurance
coverage in respect of the tractor and trailer must be
determined by examining the respective insurance policies and
the applicable statutory provisions.
26. Further, Section 122 of the MV Act reads as under:
“No person in charge of a motor
vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or
any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at
rest on any public place in such a position or
in such a condition or in such circumstances
as to cause or likely to cause danger,
obstruction or undue inconvenience to other
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
users of the public place or to the
passengers.”
27. It the present case, the material on record indicates
that the driver of the tractor trailer had stopped the vehicle in
the middle of the road after unloading sugarcane, without
giving any warning or indication to approaching road users. The
accident at about 6.45 p.m., when visibility would ordinarily
was less and it depending upon the prevailing light and road
conditions. In such circumstances, leaving the tractor trailer in
the middle of the road without adequate warning or safety
precautions would have created a serious risk to other road
users.
28. Therefore, the act of stopping the tractor trailer in
the middle of the road without taking adequate precautions
constitutes a relevant circumstance for determining negligence,
if supported by the evidence on record, the said conduct
establishes negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor
trailer and may be taken into consideration while assessing
contributory negligence and apportioning liability between the
parties. The ultimate apportionment, however, must be based
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
on the evidence regarding the manner of the accident and the
respective contribution of the drivers concerned.
29. Law is well settled that both the tractor as well as
trailer which involved in the accident are must be insured.
When the trailer was not insured, the liability cannot be
fastened on the insurer of the tractor alone.
30. The evidence of PW1 indicates that Ex.R2 the policy
of the tractor is valid for the period from 11.09.2022 to
10.09.2023. The deceased, who was the rider of the motorcycle
dashed to the trailer. The trailer is not insured with respondent
No.2/Insurance Company and the respondent No.3 is the owner
of the trailer, who has not stepped into the witness box..
31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma
7
and Others , has held that when an uninsured trailer is
attached to an insured tractor, even if the accident is caused by
the uninsured trailer, the insurer of the tractor is liable to
7
2025 INSC 625
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
indemnify the compensation. Further it held that the trailer
cannot move on its own without being attached to the tractor.
32. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Thirakappa Ramappa
8
Itagi and Another , has held as under:
“11. Even otherwise, as the other two
judges of this Court have taken the same
view which I am taking in this case, I hold
that:
“If there is a tractor and trailer
both of them must be individually
insured to fasten any liability on the
Insurance Company.”
In this view, I find that the appeal has
to be allowed and the liability of the
Insurance company has to be deleted.
12. I find that while passing the award
the Tribunal has directed the claimant only
i.e., the Insurance Company. That portion of
the order is modified and the claimant-
respondent who was a petition before the
Tribunal is permitted to claim the entire
amount awarded with interest from the
owner.”
8
ILR 2001 KAR 3037
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
33. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental
9
Insurance Company Limited v. D. Laxman and Others ,
has held as under:
“32. Lastly, in so far as the claimant is
concerned, it does not matter whether the
vehicle is insured or not. Where the vehicle
is insured, the liability passes to the
Insurance Company to the extent of the
proportional liability of its owner. But, when
it is not insured, the owner of the vehicle or
the person responsible for the accident has
to pay the amount of compensation. There is
no authority for the proposition, that when
the vehicle is not insured, the
claimant/claimants are not entitled to any
amount.”
34. In this case, the trailer is not covered with
insurance. On the other hand, the tractor is insured with the
respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 being the owner of the
trailer not chosen to contest the proceedings and he arrayed as
accused No.3 in the charge sheet. The said charge sheet has
not been challenged.
9
ILR 2006 KAR 4355
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
35. The oral and documentary evidence clearly
establishes that the driver of the tractor stationed his vehicle in
the middle of the road without giving any indication and
without taking proper precaution, dangerously parked the
tractor trailer in the middle of the road and thereby caused
obstruction for the users of the road. The alleged accident
occurred at about 06:45 p.m., normally by that time, the user
of the road not able to see the vehicle which has been parked
in the middle of the road. So, the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the parking of the tractor trailer in the middle of
the road without putting hazardous light or without giving any
indication to the users of the road. The Tribunal has rightly
saddled 50-50 liability on the insurer of the tractor and also on
the owner of the trailer.
36. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the
affirmative.
37. Regarding point No.(ii): According to the
petitioners, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
lower side. The accident occurred in the year 2022. The
petitioners have not produced any material document to prove
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
the income of the deceased. So, the Tribunal assessed the
notional income of the deceased at Rs.14,500/- per month.
When there is no document to prove the income, it is up to the
Tribunal to assess the notional income as per the guidelines
issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. Therefore,
the notional income of the deceased is to be taken at
Rs.14,750/- per month.
38. The deceased was aged 55 years at the time of
accident. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation
10
and another , the applicable multiplier would be “11”.
39. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
11
Pranay Sethi , as the deceased was aged 55 years at the
time of accident, 10% of the notional income of the deceased
is to be added towards future prospects.
40. The deceased died leaving behind him by six
th
dependents. Hence, 1/4 of the notional income of the
10
2009 ACJ 1298
11
(2017) 16 SCC 680
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
deceased is deducted towards personal living expenses. Thus,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of
“loss of dependency” as under:
Rs.14,750/- + 10% = Rs.16,225/-
th
Rs.16,225/- - 1/4 (Rs.4,056/-)= Rs.12,169/-
Rs.12,169/- X 12 X 11 = Rs.16,06,308/-
41. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioners No.2 to 6
are the children of the deceased. They are entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of “loss of
consortium”.
42. Further, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of “loss of
estate” and “funeral expenses”. In all, the compensation is
awarded under the following heads:
Sl. Amount in
Heads
No. Rs.
1 Loss of dependency 16,06,308/-
2 Loss of consortium 2,40,000/-
3 Loss of estate 15,000/-
4 Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 18,76,308/-
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
43. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.18,76,308/- as against Rs.16,70,116/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
44. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered partly in the
affirmative.
45. Regarding point No.(iii) : In view of the findings
on point Nos.(i) and (ii), this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal filed by the petitioners is
allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified only to the
extent of enhancing the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The petitioners are entitled to receive
compensation of Rs.18,76,308/- as
against Rs.16,70,116/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
(iv) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18077
MFA No. 100098 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020006512026
from the date of petition till the date of
payment.
(v) Respondent No.2/Insurance Company and
the respondent No.3/owner of the trailer are
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner
to the extent of their liability 50% each and
further directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation with accrued interest before
the Tribunal within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
(vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
(vii) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records
forthwith.
(viii) In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and the same are accordingly
disposed of.
(K.G.SHANTHI)
JUDGE
SMM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
Digitally Signed by KADAMBADI
GANESH SHANTHI on 06-11-2026