UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SHRI LOKESH

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3404 OF 2017(MV-I)

C/W

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1555 OF 2017(MV-I)

IN MFA NO.3404/2017:

BETWEEN:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
I FLOOR, R V COMPLEX,
OPP:LIC OFFICE,
BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND,
I FLOOR, RAMANAGARA - 562 159
REP BY THE REIGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
TH TH
5 AND 6 FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

…APPELLANT
[BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE (PH)]








SIGN

AND:
1 . SHRI LOKESH
S/O SHRI VENKATAPPA,
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/AT PADARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 562 109.

2 . SHRI KRISHNA NAYAK
S/O SHRI HANUMA NAYAK,
MAJOR,
R/AT PADARAHALLI VILLAGE,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 109.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI RAJU S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.156/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,67,922/-
TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION.
IN MFA NO.1555/2017:
BETWEEN:
LOKESH
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT PADARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST
…APPELLANT
[BY SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1 . KRISHNA NAYAK
S/O HANUMA NAYAK
R/AT PADARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TQ & DIST - 572 159.

2 . THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
ST
1 FLOOR, RVR COMPLEX
OPP: LIC BEHIND KSRTC BUS STAND,
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI K.HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2]

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.156/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

THESE APPEALS IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS ,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 28.11.2016
passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT,
Ramanagara (' Tribunal ') in MVC no.156/2012, these appeals
are filed. While MFA no.3404/2017 is by insurer, MFA
no.1555/2017 is by claimant.


2. Brief facts leading to these appeals as stated are
that at 4:30 pm on 08.01.2012, when claimant was travelling
on Tractor and Trailer no.KA-52-T-0387 and 0388 as loader, its
driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner on Ramanagara-
Magadi road and suddenly applied brakes, which caused
separation of Tractor and Trailer. Claimant fell down and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



suffered grievous injuries. Despite treatment at Ramanagara
Rotary Hospital and Sai Ram Hospital, Bangalore, he did not
recover fully and sustained permanent physical disability.
Alleging loss of earning capacity he filed claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘ MV Act ’) against
owner and insurer of Tractor.


3. Though owner appeared, only insurer filed
objections opposing claim petition on all grounds including
alleging that policy issued did not cover risk of loader.


4. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
08.01.2012 at about 4.30 a.m. he was traveling
as a loader on a Tractor bearing no.KA-52-T-
0387 and Trailer bearing no.KA-52-T-0388 near
Ramanagara-Magadi road, Gollarahalli-
Katukanapalya when the driver of the said
vehicle drove in a rash and negligent manner
and applied sudden breaks and the tractor and
trailer got separated as a result of which
petitioner suffered grievous injury as alleged?

2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the
driver of the tractor and trailer had no valid
driving license?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



4. What order or award?


5. To establish contentions, claimant examined himself
and Dr.K Prashanth as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to
P15. In rebuttal, officials of insurers and RTO deposed as RWs.1
to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to R8.


6. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issue no.2 in negative, issue no.3 partly in
affirmative and issue no.4 by assessing compensation of
Rs.2,67,922/- with interest at 9% per annum and holding
insurer liable to pay same. Aggrieved, these appeals were filed.


7. Sri Ravish Benni, learned counsel submitted that
MFA no.3404/2017 was by insurer challenging finding of
Tribunal on liability. It was submitted that Tribunal failed to
appreciate that Tractor had seating capacity of only one i.e. for
driver. Even if Trailer were attached to Tractor, carriage of
loaders was prohibited. It was submitted Full Bench of this
Court in Gadhilingappa v. K. Guleppa , reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine Kar 12137 , had held that insurer would not be liable
for injuries/death of person travelling on mudguard of Tractor.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



Learned counsel also seeks to rely on a decision of this Court in
Hanumanthappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Others, reported in 2018 ACJ 1884.


8. Besides above, even Rule 28 of ‘Rules of Road
Regulations, 1989’ (‘ Regulations ’) prohibited driver of Tractor
from carrying any other person on engine. Further, Tribunal
failed to notice that apart from claimant there were two others
travelling in Trailer indicating that Tractor-Trailer was used as
passenger vehicle in violation of terms of policy covering risk
only during its usage for agricultural purposes. It was further
submitted that Ex.R7 – Policy did not mention about payment
nd
of premium to cover risk of 2 employee. It was lastly
submitted that interest awarded by Tribunal at 9% p.a. was
excessive and warranted interference. Hence, impugned award
called for interference.


9. On other hand, Sri AK Bhat, learned counsel
appearing for Sri Raju S, advocate for claimant opposed
insurer’s appeal. It was submitted, Rule 100 of Karnataka
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘ Rules’ ) allows owner of goods or

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



hirer or their bonafide employees to travel in goods vehicle
along with goods. Insurer’s contention that claimant was
travelling in goods vehicle would be at best a violation of policy
conditions in which case an order for pay and recover could be
passed. It was submitted that under similar circumstances,
Division Bench of this Court in Narasibai and Ors. v. Krishna
Nayak and Anr. [ 2022:KHC:3787-DB ], had fixed liability on
insurer. Likewise, even Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shivaraj v.
Rajendra and Anr. , reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 held
insurer to pay compensation to claimant and thereafter recover
same from insured. Said ratio would apply to this case as well.


10. And relying on decision of this Court in Mounesh v.
Thimmanna , reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Kar 462 wherein
it was held that on attachment of Trailer, Tractor functioned
as goods vehicle and holding insurance policy covering risks
of workmen/loaders employed on it. On said grounds sought for
dismissal of insurer’s appeal.


11. Insofar as enhancement of compensation, it was
submitted that as on date of accident claimant was 20 year old

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



earning Rs.9,000/- per month as coolie sustained permanent
physical disability assessed by PW.2 at 17% to left upper limb
and 15% to whole body. Further, Tribunal erred in not adding
future prospects to monthly income. Even grant of
Rs.1,41,309/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards
future medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment and
attendant charges, Rs.933/- towards loss of income during laid-
up period, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and
Rs.2,000/- towards loss of amenities were on lower side and
sought enhancement.


12. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and record.


13. From above, points that arise for consideration are:

i. Whether Tribunal erred in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation?


ii. Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as
prayed?

Point no.(i) :

14. In order to establish actionable negligence against
owner/insurer, claimant relied on prosecution records. Exs.P1 -

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



FIR and Ex.P3 - Charge sheet mentions about claimant sitting
on Tractor engine/mudguard along with two others. In cross-
examination, claimant stated that he was travelling on Trailer.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Honnamma , reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1027 held that when Tractor is attached with
Trailer, Tractor would cause movement and be liable for
accident. Hence, insurer of Tractor must first satisfy award and
thereafter recover it from insured. In Shivaraj 's case ( supra ),
dealing with case of claimant travelling on Tractor, Hon'ble
Supreme Court arrived at similar conclusion. Thus, in either
case, insurer would be liable to pay compensation to claimant
and thereafter recover it from insured. Incidentally in present
case, claimant admitted that he was travelling on Trailer.
Therefore, instead of Shivaraj 's case ( supra ), decision in
Honnamma 's case ( supra ), would be attracted. Reliance on
decision in Hanumanthappa 's case ( supra ) would be
inconsequential, as in instant case claimant stated that he was
travelling on trailer. Hence, point no.(i) is answered partly in

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



affirmative holding insurer liable to pay compensation to
claimant and thereafter be at liberty to recover it from insured.

Point no.(ii) :

15. At outset, there is no dispute about occurrence of
accident and claimant sustaining loss of earning capacity and
being entitled for compensation. Though claimant stated
himself to be aged 20 years earning Rs.9,000/- per month as
coolie, he did not substantiate it. In absence, Tribunal rightly
assessed it notionally. But notional income for year 2012 being
Rs.7,000/-, Tribunal erred in taking it at Rs.4,000/-. There is
no dispute about extent of loss of earning capacity assessed at
15% or about multiplier of ‘18’. But as per ratio laid down in
Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation
Ltd. , reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601 , future prospects
has to be added to monthly income. Since claimant was below
40 years and self-employed future prospects at 40% has to be
added. Thus, compensation towards future loss of income
would be:
(Rs.7,000 + 40%) x 15 % x 12 x 18 = Rs.3,17,520/- .

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017




16. While passing impugned award, Tribunal has
granted Rs.1,41,309/- in full reimbursement of medical bills
produced leaving no scope for enhancement. Taking note of
number and nature of fractures, award of Rs.5,000/- towards
pain and suffering, would be grossly inadequate and found fit to
enhance to Rs.50,000/- . Likewise, award of Rs.10,000/-
towards future medical expenses would also be inadequate and
therefore enhanced to Rs.40,000/- . Considering in-patient
treatment period of 7 days, award of Rs.5,000/- towards
nourishment and attendant charges would appear just and
proper. Normally fractures take about three months to heal.
Taking same as layoff, claimant would be entitled to
Rs.21,000/- instead of Rs.933/- towards loss of income during
treatment. Considering nature and number of fractures and
disability sustained award of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of
amenities would grossly inadequate and therefore stands
enhanced to Rs.30,000/- .


17. Insofar as rate of interest Hon'ble Supreme Court
has been consistently held that rate of interest at 9%. Thus,

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017



total compensation would be Rs.6,04,829/- . Point no.(ii) is
answered partly in affirmative.


18. Consequently, following:
ORDER

i. MFA no.3404/2017 filed by insurer is
allowed in part .


ii. MFA no.1555/2017 filed by claimant is
allowed in part .


iii. Judgment and award dated 28.11.2016
passed by Tribunal in MVC no.156/2012 is
modified .


iv. Insurer is directed to deposit re-assessed
compensation below to claimant with liberty
to recover it from insured.


v. Total compensation is re-assessed to
Rs.6,04,829/- as against Rs.2,67,922/-
assessed by Tribunal.


vi. Same shall carry interest at 9% per annum
from date of claim petition till its realization.


vii. Insurer to deposit entire compensation with
interest at rate of 9% per annum before
Tribunal within Six weeks.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60403
MFA No. 3404 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 1555 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010293342017





viii. On deposit, entire compensation with interest
is ordered to be released in favour of
claimant.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


GRD/HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14