Karnataka HC Orders Insurer To Pay Family After Tractor-Bonnet Passenger’s Death, Allows Recovery From Owner

The claimants, comprising the deceased’s wife, minor daughters and parents, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that the tractor-trailer on which the deceased was travelling capsized due to its driver’s rash and negligent driving.

The insurer contended that the deceased had been travelling on the tractor’s bonnet, contrary to the vehicle’s seating capacity and policy terms, and argued that the claim should instead be considered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

The Tribunal awarded ₹9,23,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum and held the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, also arguing that the claim was time-barred if pursued under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a claim for compensation arising from an accident involving a motor vehicle.

The Court considered the Full Bench decision in Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga v. K. Guleppa, 2021 ACJ 2588, which held that an insurer is not liable where a victim travels on a tractor’s mudguard or bonnet, and the Supreme Court’s decision in V. Renganathan v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2569, which held that dismissal of the claim in its entirety is not justified and directed the insurer to pay compensation with liberty to recover it from the vehicle owner, following Shivaraj v. Rajendra, (2018) 10 SCC 432.

The Court also noted that there is no prescribed limitation period for a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The Court rejected the insurer’s challenge to the claim’s maintainability under the Motor Vehicles Act because the insurer had not specifically raised before the Tribunal either that the petition was not maintainable under that Act or that the policy covered the risk only under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

On liability, the police records showed that the deceased was travelling on the tractor’s bonnet, and the policy documents showed a seating capacity of one; the Court therefore accepted that this breached the policy terms.

However, applying V. Renganathan and Shivaraj, it held that the breach did not justify dismissing the claim against the insurer outright; the insurer could be directed to satisfy the award and recover the amount from the owner.

The limitation argument was also rejected because the claim was maintained under the Motor Vehicles Act and, in any event, the Court noted no limitation period for a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

The award was modified to hold the insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants, with liberty to recover the amount from the owner/insured without separate proceedings.

The amount already deposited was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursal, and the insurer was directed to deposit the balance within six weeks.