Broiler hens constitute livestock and goods, making accidental loss covered under the motor insurance policy.

The claimant, proprietor of Balaji Poultry Farm, purchased 2,250 broiler hens and transported them in an Eicher van bearing registration No. KA-34/A-5516 from Challakere to Tadapathri.

On 19 June 2013, the vehicle met with an accident near Ayyagaralapalli Village; approximately 2,000 hens died and the remaining 250 were allegedly taken away by local persons.

The claimant relied on the invoice, bank statement, poultry-farm licence, and police records to establish ownership of the hens, their transportation, and the accident.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari, awarded ₹4,51,000 with interest at 7% per annum.

The claimant appealed seeking enhancement, while the insurer challenged liability, contending that hens were not “goods” or “livestock,” that Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 had not been complied with, and that the compensation was excessive.

1. Whether the insurer established that the hens transported in the offending vehicle could not be treated as “goods” under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Whether there was any violation of Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required modification.

The Court applied Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines “goods” to include livestock.

It interpreted “livestock” broadly to include hens, as living animals.

Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes conditions for transporting cattle in goods vehicles, but its Explanation specifically lists the animals included within “cattle” and does not include hens.

The Court also applied the terms of the insurance policy, which covered liability for damage to property, other than property belonging to or held by the insured, up to ₹7.5 lakhs.

Compensation must correspond to the proved actual loss, subject to the evidence produced.

The documentary evidence established that the claimant had purchased 2,250 broiler hens, paid ₹4,50,584.40 for them, and was transporting them in the insured vehicle when the accident occurred.

The police records and charge-sheet corroborated the accident and death of the hens; the absence of a veterinary report was therefore not fatal.

Since Section 2(13) includes livestock within “goods,” and hens are living animals, the insurer’s contention that they were outside the policy’s goods coverage was rejected.

Rule 74 was held inapplicable because its definition of “cattle” does not include hens.

The Tribunal’s award of ₹4,51,000, based on the proved loss and an additional ₹1,000, was found just and reasonable and did not warrant enhancement or reduction.

However, the Court reduced the interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum.

The insurer’s appeal, MFA No.102208/2016, was partly allowed solely to reduce the interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum; the principal compensation of ₹4,51,000 and the remaining findings of the Tribunal were affirmed.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks, and the modified decree was ordered to be drawn.