DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA vs SHIVANNA @ SHIVAMURTHY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10034 OF 2013(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA
INSURNACE CO LTD
# 34/3, M M K COM0PLEX
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD
P J EXTENSION
DAVANAGERE - 577 002.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANNA @ SHIVAMURTHY
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
NOW AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
R/O CHIKKAPURA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
2. S NAGAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
OWNER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER
R/O SADARAHALLY
LAXMISAGARA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
3. SHIVANANDA
S/O VEERAPPA
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
NOW AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER
R/O CHIKKAPURA VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B M SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 AND R3 NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.363/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSION JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHITRADURGA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,67,500/- WITH INTEREST
@6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETIION TILL THE REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL , THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 16.09.2013
passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge & Addl. MACT.,
Tribunal
Chitradurga ( ), in M.V.C.no.363/2008, this appeal is
filed.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
2. Sri A.N.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for
appellant submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging
finding of tribunal on liability.
3. Brief facts leading to appeal as per claimant were
that at 8:30 p.m. on 10.12.2007 claimant along with other
coolies, as per instructions of owner, went to unload areca nut
in tractor-trailer no.KA.16/F-1264-65. On return journey, they
stopped at Bharamasagar for meals. Thereafter when claimant
was standing on backside of tractor-trailer, driver drove it in
reverse direction without any signal or noticing claimant.
Tractor-trailer dashed against claimant resulting in injuries.
Despite treatment at CHC, Hospital, Bharamasagara and later
at Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga, he did not recover fully
and sustained loss of earning capacity. Claiming compensation,
he filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
MV Act
1988 ( ) against driver, owner and insurer of tractor-
trailer.
4. Despite service of notice, driver of tractor-trailer did
not appear and was placed ex parte . Owner and insurer
opposed claim petition on all available grounds. Based on
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
pleadings, tribunal framed following issues and recorded
evidence:
i. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained
injuries in the alleged RTA on 10.12.2007 at 8.30
p.m. in Bharamasagara, Chitradurga Taluk, due to
rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer bearing
no.KA-16/T-1264-65 by its driver?
ii. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, at what quantum and from whom?
iii. To what order or award?
5. Claimant along with Dr.Ambarish deposed as PWs.1
and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 17. In rebuttal, official of
insurer was examined as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 to 3. On
consideration, tribunal held accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of tractor by its driver. Claimant had
sustained injuries and was entitled for compensation assessed
at Rs.1,67,500/- with interest at 6% per annum and held
owner as well as insurer liable to pay same. Dis-satisfied with
finding on liability, appeal was filed.
6. It was firstly submitted that tribunal had, on an
earlier occasion, passed award dismissing claim petition against
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
insurer and holding owner liable to pay compensation of
Rs.59,400/-. Said award was questioned by claimant in MFA
no.3161/2011. By judgment dated 08.12.2012, same was
allowed and matter remitted back to tribunal. Thereafter
impugned order was passed holding owner and insurer liable to
pay compensation. It was submitted that consistent version of
claimant in claim petition and in deposition was that accident
occurred when claimant was standing behind tractor and driver
reversed tractor without signal or noticing claimant same
militated against contents of Ex.P4 wound certificate, Ex.P15
Discharge summary and Ex.R3 MLC Register Extract, which
indicated that injuries were sustained due to fall from tractor.
7. It was submitted that though on an earlier occasion
taking note of claimant's version that he was working as coolie
and accident occurred while in course of employment had held
liability of insurer would be under Workmen's Compensation Act
WC Act
( ), under impugned award, tribunal erroneously
observed that insurer would be liable, regardless of whether
claimant sustained injuries while standing behind tractor or
while travelling on tractor, which would not be justified.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
9. Further, a tractor when attached with trailer would
be a goods vehicle and no other passenger than driver would
be permitted to travel on tractor ( tractor engine ). In absence
of any explanation about discrepancy in police investigation
records and claimant's version vis-a-vis contents of wound
certificate, discharge summary and MLC register extract,
claimant would have to be held to have approached tribunal
with unclean hands and claim petition was liable to be
dismissed. On said ground sought for allowing appeal.
10. Respondent no.1-claimant is served,
unrepresented. Sri BM Siddappa, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 - owner would oppose appeal.
11. It was submitted that there was no dispute about
both tractor and trailer being covered under insurance policy
issued by appellant herein and being current as on date of
accident. There was also no dispute about driver of vehicle
holding valid and effective driving licence. It was submitted that
claimant had consistently stated that he was an employee and
travelling as a loader/unloader. Since separate and additional
premium was collected to cover risk of employee, tribunal
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
rightly held insurer liable to pay compensation. There was
admission by insurer that claimant was employee. Therefore,
fastening of liability on insurer by tribunal was justified and
sought for dismissal.
12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned award
and record.
13. From above and since insurer is in appeal
specifically on ground of inconsistency about manner of
occurrence of accident and for avoidance of liability on ground
of violation of terms and conditions of policy, point that would
arise for consideration is :
Whether tribunal was justified in
holding claimant entitled for
compensation from insurer?
14. In order to establish actionable negligence against
driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle, claimant relied
on police investigation records. Ex.P1-FIR is registered on a
complaint filed three days after date of accident. In complaint
claimant stated that he had travelled on tractor-trailer as per
instructions of owner to unload areca nut and in transit, vehicle
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
had stopped for meals. Thereafter when claimant was standing
behind tractor trailer, driver reversed vehicle without noticing
claimant, trailer hit claimant and he sustained injuries. Ex.P2-
charge sheet would reflect same version. Ex.P3-spot
panchanama would also be on similar lines. In order to
establish injuries and disability, claimant relied on discharge
summary, disability certificate, evaluation reports, medical bills,
x-rays and case sheet, etc. Ex.P4-wound certificate, Ex.P7-
discharge summary and Ex.P15- case sheet would however
paint a different version. They would record in history of
injuries as 'fall from tractor'. There is no mention in any of
them that claimant sustained injuries due to fall from trailer or
for that matter fall from tractor trailer. There does not appear
to be any confusion or usage of word 'tractor' in wider meaning
to cover both tractor and trailer. Neither in his claim petition
nor in his examination in chief, claimant has offered any
explanation that usage was in wider sense. In case claimant
sustained injuries due to fall from tractor trailer, as rightly
submitted by owner of tractor trailer, insurer may have found it
difficult to avoid liability. If claimant had sustained injuries due
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
to fall from tractor i.e. tractor engine, since no other person
than driver would be entitled to travel on tractor, same would
be violation of terms and conditions of insurance coverage and
though insurer would be liable to pay compensation to claimant
in first instance, it would be entitled to recover it from owner.
But instant case reveals two very different versions, one about
claimant sustaining injuries while standing behind vehicle and
vehicle reversing and hitting him where he would be a
pedestrian and other would be as inmate.
15. As noted above, discrepancy has not been
explained. Therefore, when difference in version about manner
of occurrence would make a large difference on aspect of
liability, absence of explanation would invite adverse inference.
In view of above, point for consideration would have to be
answered in negative.
16. Consequently, following:
ORDER
allowed
i. Appeal is .
ii. Judgment and award dated 16.09.2013
passed by Additional District and
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61204
MFA No. 10034 of 2013
CNR: KAHC010458752013
Sessions Judge and AMACT, Chitradurga
in MVC no.363/2008 is set aside.
iii. Claim petition is dismissed.
iv. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
released in favour of appellant
electronically.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
HNM,YKL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4