THE BRANCH MANAGER vs VIJAYAMMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3042 OF 2017 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, JAGALURU
MAHALINGAPPA TOWER,
NEAR MAGANUR PETROL BUNK
P.B. ROAD, CHITRADURGA.
BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144
SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001,
BY ITS MANAGER.
…APPELLANT











(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
SIGN
AND:

1. VIJAYAMMA
W/O LATE H.T. BORAPPA
AGE 32 YEARS

2. MAMATHA
D/O LATE H.T. BORAPPA
AGE 12 YEARS

3. CHANDANA
D/O LATE H.T. BORAPPA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS

4. KAVANA
D/O LATE H.T. BORAPPA
AGE 8 YEARS

5. THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE RANGAPPA
AGE 66 YEARS

6. NAGENDRAMMA
W/O THIPPESWAMY
AGE 61 YEARS

RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE
MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
M/G 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
BYALEHAL VILLAGE
BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI,
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.

7.
B. PRAHALAD
MAJOR, S/O BORAPPA
R/O BYALEHAL VILLAGE
BHARAMASAGARA HOBLI
CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.K. SHREEHARSH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BABU MAHENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5, R6;
R2 TO R4 MINORS REP. BY R1;
R7 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.112/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT-V, CHITRADURGA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 9,23,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Challenging judgment and award dated 09.12.2016
passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl.MACT-V,
Chitradurga ( Tribunal ), in M.V.C.no.112/2016, this appeal is
filed.

2. Sri O.Mahesh, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award on
liability and maintainability of claim petition before MACT.

3. Brief facts leading to this case are that at about
6:45 p.m. on 03.05.2011 after completion of coolie work,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



Manjunath was proceeding on tractor-trailer no.KA-16/TA-
2550-51, near Byalahal village, driver of tractor-trailer drove it
in rash and negligent manner and after running over mud
bund, it capsized. In said accident, Manjunath sustained fatal
injuries and died. Alleging loss of dependency, his wife and
three minor daughters and parents filed claim petition under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( MV Act ) against
owner and insurer of tractor-trialer.

4. Despite service of notice, owner did not appear and
was placed ex parte. While insurer appeared and filed
objections opposing claim petition, denying age, occupation,
income of deceased and loss of dependency by claimants
alleging accident was not due to negligent driving of tractor-
trailer, but due to negligence of deceased, who was sitting on
bonnet of tractor-trialer. That compensation claimed was
exorbitant and liability of insurer would be subject to terms and
conditions of insurance policy, insured vehicle having valid
Registration Certificate, Fitness certificate and driver having
valid driving licence as on date of accident.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017




5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following
issues:

i. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
H.T.Borappa S/o.Thippeswamy sustained fatal
injuries in the RTA occurred on 03.05.2011 at about
6.45 p.m., near the land of Basavaraj at
Avalenahalli village, Chitradurga taluk, due to rash
and negligent driving of driver of tractor-trialer
bearing Reg.no.KA-16/TA-2550-51 and died due to
the injuries on the same day?

ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation, if so, how much and from whom?

iii. What order or award?

6. Claimant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P8. Respondent examined its official as RW.1 and got
marked Exs.R1 and R2.

7. On consideration, tribunal answered issue no.1 in
affirmative, issue no.2 partly in affirmative and issue no.3 by
assessing total compensation of Rs.9,23,000/- and holding
respondent no.2 liable to pay same. Aggrieved, insurer was in
appeal.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017




8. It was submitted that documents relied on by
claimants to establish actionable negligence against insurer i.e.,
police investigation records would indicate that accident
occurred while deceased was travelling on tractor by sitting on
bonnet. Even in claim petition, claimants had mentioned that at
time of accident claimants had stated that deceased was
travelling on tractor and tractor seating capacity of which as
per Ex.R2 was '1' and Ex.R1 insurance policy mentioned
collection of premium of Rs.50/- for coverage of risk under
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ( WC Act ). Therefore,
ignoring same, tribunal not only erred in assessing
compensation by entertaining claim petition under provisions of
MV Act, but also erred in holding insurer liable to pay same.

9. It was further submitted even if claimants were to
maintain an application for compensation under WC Act, risk
covered therein would be only while loading and unloading and
not during travel on vehicle. It was submitted that Full Bench
decision of this Court Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga and
reported in
Another v. K.Guleppa and Others, 2021 ACJ

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



2588 had absolved liability of insurer in case of victim
travelling on mud-guard of tractor.

10. Learned counsel further submitted that accident in
question occurred on 03.05.2011, but claim petition was filed
1/2
on 25.01.2016, more than 4 years after date of accident, and
therefore, claim petition ought to have been dismissed as
barred by limitation, if claim were under provisions of WC Act.
On said grounds, sought for allowing appeal.

11. On other hand, Sri A.K.Shreeharsh, learned counsel
appearing for Sri Balu Mahendra, Advocate for respondents-
claimants would oppose appeal.

12. It was submitted that even if seating capacity of
tractor were one and victim travelled on mud-guard or bonnet
of vehicle, Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Renganathan v.
Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company
Limited reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2569, had held
dismissal of claim petition in entirety would not be justified and
High Court ought to have allowed appeal in part by directing
insurer to pay compensation to claimants with liberty to recover

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



it from owner of tractor. It was submitted that Division Bench
of this Court in M.F.A.no.4431/2024 [2025:KHC:23428-
DB] had followed said decision and submitted that same ratio
would apply. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of appeal.

13. Heard learned counsel and perused judgment and
award.

14. Since this is insurer's appeal, points that would
arise for consideration are-

i. Whether tribunal was justified in entertaining
claim petition under provisions of Motor Vehicles
Act and assessing compensation accordingly?

ii. Whether tribunal was justified in fastening liability
on insurer?

15. Point no.1 is answered against insurer and point
no.2 is answered partly in affirmative for following:
REASONS
Point no.i :

16. In claim petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act,
claimants stated that accident had occurred due to usage of
motor vehicle i.e., tractor-trialer and filed claim petition under

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



provisions of MV Act. In their objections filed, there is no
specific contention about claim petition being not maintainable
under provisions of MV Act or about coverage under policy was
towards risk of employees under provisions of WC Act. Even
impugned award does not indicate any such contention urged
before it. Besides contention of insurer before tribunal was
based on violation of terms and conditions of policy. Hence,
point no.1 is answered against insurer.
Point no.ii :

17. Insofar as liability, indeed prosecution records relied
upon by claimants would indicate that at time of accident,
victim was travelling on bonnet of tractor and died when it
capsized. Exs.R1 and R2 would also indicate that seating
capacity of tractor was '1' and would not permit any other
passenger to travel on engine. Same would be in breach of
terms and conditions of policy. Though Full Bench of this Court
in Gadhilingappa's case (supra) has held insurer would not be
liable to pay compensation in case of victims travelling on
tractor bonnet, otherwise than driver, Hon'ble Supreme Court
in V. Renganathan's case (supra) while considering very

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017



same issue has held dismissal of claim petition in entirety by
High Court was not justified and by referring to its earlier
decision in case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra and Anr. reported in
(2018) 10 SCC 432 modified judgment by holding insurer
liable to pay compensation and thereafter recover it from owner
of tractor. Even contention of learned counsel for insurer that
computation of compensation would only be under provisions of
WC Act are also found to be untenable. Likewise, contention
about claim petition being barred would be unsubstantiated as
there is no provision for period of limitation for claim petition
filed under WC Act. In view of above, point no.2 is answered
partly in affirmative .

18. Consequently, following -
ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part , judgment and award dated
09.12.2016 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
Addl. MACT-V, Chitradurga, in M.V.C.no.112/2016, is
modified.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58590
MFA No. 3042 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010268682017




ii. Insurer is held liable to pay compensation to
claimants, but would be at liberty to recover it from
owner/insured without recourse to separate
proceedings.

iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to
tribunal for disbursal.

iv. Respondent - insurer is liable to deposit balance
amount within six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE


HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3