Dismissed

Sri Vijayakumar v. Smt Rathnamma

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023MFA/9768/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed appeals filed by the owner of a tractor-trailer against compensation awards granted to the heirs of the deceased and the injured. The Court held that an LMV license sufficed to drive the vehicle. However, relying on the Full Bench decision of *Gadhlingappa*, it ruled that passengers on the mudguard of a tractor are not covered under statutory insurance, confir

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; lower Tribunal judgments and awards confirmed; liability remains with the vehicle owner.

Sri Vijayakumar Vs Smt Rathnamma — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9768 OF 2017 (MV-D)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1905 OF 2019 (MV-I)

¶11

IN M.F.A. NO. 9768 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

¶12

SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. MEDIGESHI-572 132 MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE [V/C])

¶15

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

1 . SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. LATE MANUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶18

2 . SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O. LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶19

BOTH ARE R/AT: MEDIGESHI-572 132, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶22

3 . THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HEAD OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, TOWER-2, INDIA BULLS FINANCE CENTRE, SENAPAT BAPAT MARG, ELPHINESTOIEN ROAD, MUMBAI-400 013. MAHARASTRA STATE. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED MANAGER.

¶23

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LAND MARK, OPP:TB GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBBI-580 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI ANANDEESHAR D.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 [V/C]; SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 [V/C])

¶26

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27/09/2017, PASSED IN MVC NO.176/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-XIII, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,25,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

¶27

IN M.F.A. NO. 1905 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O: MEDIGESHI MADHUGIRI TALUK -572 132, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶29

...APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI V B SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE [V/C])

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶33

AND:

¶34

1 . SRI NARASIMHAPPA, S/O. LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O: SIDDAGUNTAPPALI VILLAGE, PENUGONDA TALUK, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT, ANDHARA PRADESH STATE, NOW R/O. MEDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK- 572 132, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

¶35

2 . THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI-400 013. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED MANAGER.

¶36

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: THE FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI LAND MARK, OPP. TB GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI-581 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 [V/C]; SRI K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [V/C])

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.10.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.833/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,07,060/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶40

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.176/2014 dated 27-9-2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XIII, Madhugiri and the judgment and award passed in MVC No.833/2018 dated 01-10-2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri.

¶45

The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

¶46

The owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court in these appeals assailing the liability fastened upon him by the Tribunals in respect of the accident dated 16.02.2014 at about 4.45 p.m. involving the tractor trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-1730-1731.

¶47

In MVC No.176/2014, the petitioners are the wife and mother of the deceased Manjunatha and in MVC No.833/2016, the petitioner is the injured-Narasimhappa.

¶48

The case of the petitioners in both these cases is that on 16-2-2014 at around 4-45 p.m. the deceased

¶49

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶50

Manjunatha and the injured- Narasimhappa were traveling in a tractor trailer bearing Reg.No.KA.06.TA.1730-1731 as loaders and unloaders. After unloading the materials at Boda bande Palya while returning at Medigeshi village on Madhugiri-Pavagada road, the driver of the said Tractor Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and it capsized and caused the accident. Due to the impact, deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa fell down and crushed under the said tractor. They contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said tractor trailer.

¶51

The deceased Manjunatha was aged about 38 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Though he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Madhugiri immediately after the accident for treatment, he could not survive.

¶52

The petitioner in MVC No.833/2016-Narasimhappa

¶53

who suffered crushed wound on the nasal septum central, upper lip crushed skin loss, lacerated wounds on the

¶54

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶55

center of the forehead, left eye brow and lost few teeth and there was also fracture of lower end of the right radius and the head injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Madhugiri, wherein, he took treatment as inpatient and later he took treatment at Sridevi Hospital, Tumkuru.

¶56

After service of notice respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before both the Tribunals through their counsels and filed separate written statements denying the cause and circumstances of the accident. They denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners in both the petitions were exorbitant, imaginary and not tenable in law. Respondent No.1 contended that he had insured the said vehicle with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the driver of

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶59

the tractor was having a valid driving license as on the date of the accident.

¶60

Respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that the deceased Manjunath and the injured Narasimhappa were unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle i.e., tractor trailer. It was contended that the offending vehicle is having only one seating capacity and therefore, the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and also that there is a delay of one day in filing the complaint. It was contended that the

¶61

claimants/petitioners in collusion with the respondent No.1 and with the help of jurisdictional police have falsely implicated the insurer of the vehicle.

¶62

On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunals have framed appropriate issues regarding the negligence as well as the liability in both the petitions.

¶63

In MVC No.176/2014, the petitioner No.1 was

¶64

examined as PW1 and one witness was examined on their behalf as PW2 and 7 documents were produced and

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶66

¶67

marked as Exs.P1 to 7. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company examined the RTO Madhugiri as RW1 and marked two documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. The respondent No.1 had not led any evidence in the matter.

¶68

In MVC No.833/2016, the injured petitioner Narasimhappa was examined as PW1 and the Doctor who assessed the disability was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The respondent No.2- Insurance Company got examined its official as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.

¶69

After hearing both the sides, the Tribunals awarded the compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- to the dependents of the deceased Manjunath in MVC No.176/2014 and a sum of Rs.1,07,060/- to the injured petitioner Narasimhappa in MVC No.833/2016 and fastened the liability on the respondent No.1- owner of the vehicle.

¶70

Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by both the Tribunals, the respondent No.1, owner

¶71

¶72

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶73

of the vehicle is before this Court in these appeals assailing the said judgments.

¶74

On issuance of notice, respondent No.2Insurance company and the petitioners/claimants in both the appeals appeared before this Court through their counsels. Since the accident involved in both these cases was one and the same, they are clubbed together and heard together.

¶75

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶76

appellant/owner of the offending vehicle in both the appeals contends that the accident occurred on 16-2-2014 and the complaint was lodged before the concerned police by the mother of the deceased Manjuantha on 17-2-2014. Therefore, there is a delay and as such, the false implication of the vehicle cannot be ruled out. He also contended that the driver of the tractor trailer was having driving licence to drive LMV, but not a transport vehicle. He contends that the unladen weight of the tractor was 1800 kgs., and that of the trailer was 1100 kgs. and the

¶77

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶78

total unladen weight was 2900 kgs., and as such, it was well below the threshold of the heavy vehicle and therefore, the driving licence to drive the LMV was sufficient. He contends that Exs.P5 and Exs.R3 and 4 show that the vehicle is within the definition of the LMV and therefore, the driving licence of the driver of the tractor to drive a LMV has not violated any of the provisions of the MV Act. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision in the case of M.S. Bhati Vs. National Insurance Company Limited¹ . He also relied on the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited² which held as below:

¶79

" 60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section 10(2)( d ) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a

¶80

1 (2019) 12 SCC 248

¶81

2 AIR 2017 SC 3668

¶82

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶83

transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)( d ) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form."

¶84

In this regard, he also relied on the decision in the case of Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others³ , wherein, again it was held that,

¶85

"when a person holds a permanent licence to drive the tractor, merely because he was driving the tractor which has trailer attached to it and was being used for carrying goods at the time of the accident, it cannot be said that the tractor was being used for taking goods for which the driver had no valid licence."

¶86

He also relied on the circular dated 16-04-2018

¶87

issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, which states as below:

¶88

"the transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kgs., would be a light motor vehicle and

¶89

3 (2001) 8 SCC 56

¶90

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶91

also motor car or tractor or a road roller having 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kgs., and holder of a driving licence to drive class of 'light motor vehicle' as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs."

¶92

He also relied on the decision in the case of

¶93

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi

¶94

and others⁴ wherein, it was held that;

¶95

"the combination of the tractor trailer is

¶96

nothing short of a goods carriage and therefore, when once it is held that this is goods carriage vehicle by virtue of provision of Section 147-II-1(1) of M.V. Act, passengers

¶97

or the loaders and unloaders are covered."

¶98

He also relied on the two unreported decisions of

¶99

this Court in the case of Umadevi and others Vs. The

¶100

Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

¶101

4 ILR 2011 KAR 4139

¶102

13 -

¶103

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶104

Company Limited⁵ and in the case of Sri H.M. Santhosh Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited⁶ . He also relied on the decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh⁷ .

¶105

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company in both the appeals contended that the chargesheet as well as the other police papers produced by the petitioners show that deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the tractor and not on the trailer. The cross- examination of Narasimhappa shows that he was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and also the evidence clearly establish that they were not the travelers on the trailer. Therefore, he contends that when the seating capacity of the vehicle was only one, they were not supposed to travel on the tractor and as such, they become the unauthorized passengers on the vehicle. He submits that both the Tribunals have come

¶106

to the conclusion that the deceased as well as the injured

¶107

5 MFA No.5249/2015 DD 2-12-2022

¶108

6 MFA Nos.8359/2018 C.W.MFA No.1976/2018 DD 6-4-2023

¶109

7 2017 AIAR (Civil)734

¶110

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶111

were sitting on the tractor and therefore, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. He also contends that the RTO has been examined in MVC No.176/2014 and he has stated that the driver of the tractor was having the licence to drive a LMV. It is submitted by him that the tractor become a transport vehicle when a trailer is attached to it and therefore, it gets the character of the transport vehicle for which there was no valid driving licence for the driver.

¶112

He also submitted that a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gadhlingappa @ Gadhilinga S/o Ulluru Mallappa Vs. K.Guleppa S/o Lingappa and

¶113

others⁸ empathetically lays down that the insurance company need not cover the liability of the persons who suffers injuries by traveling on the mudguard or any other attachment fixed to the tractor. Therefore, he contends

¶114

that the Full Bench Decision of this Court is clear and categorical in laying down the principles so far as the

¶115

8 MFA CROB 100001/2016 & Con.matters

¶116

DD 20-4-2021

¶117

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶118

travelers on the engine of the tractor is concerned. Hence, he contends that the judgments passed by both the Tribunals are proper and correct and the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company.

¶119

In view of the above rival contentions, the questions that arises are

¶120

A. Whether the driving licence to drive a LMV

¶121

would be sufficient enough to drive a tractor

¶122

trailer unit?

¶123

B. Whether the policy covers the passengers traveling on the mudguard of the tractor, the seating capacity of which was only one?

¶124

The first aspect is regarding the driving licence.

¶125

The decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and others (supra) , lays down that in view of the answer given to the reference by the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental

¶126

Insurance Company Limited's case, the licence to drive

¶127

16 -

¶128

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶129

a LMV would be sufficient enough to drive the tractor

¶130

trailer. In the said judgment, it was held as below:

¶131

“2. This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorising him to drive such a transport vehicle?

¶132

3. We have answered the question that the driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.

¶133

4. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd⁹ these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of the owner, driver and insurer. No costs.”

¶134

In the above decision, it is evident that the Apex

¶135

Court has also held that the decision in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) would hold the field.

¶136

The decision in M.S. Bhati Vs. National

¶137

Insurance Company Limited (supra) notes that when

¶138

9 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶139

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶140

the correctness of the judgment in Mukund Dewangan (supra) has been referred to a larger Bench, unless a different view is taken by the Apex Court, the law laid down in Mukund Dewangan's case binds till such pronouncement is made by the Apex Court. It was held that as a matter of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court is bound to follow the decision which continues to hold the field which otherwise is decided by larger Bench.

¶141

The evidence on record clearly discloses that the driver of the tractor trailer was having a licence to drive LMV which was valid as on the date of the accident. Hence, there cannot be any doubt that the tractor trailer, the unladen weight of which was much below 7500 kgs., comes within the purview of LMV and therefore, the driver was having a valid driving licence. Exs.R3 and R4 which are the Registration Certificate extract of tractor trailer and the Ex.R2 which is the extract of the driving licence in MVC No.833/2016 show that there was no such violation in respect of the driving licence. Hence, this submission of

¶142

18 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶143

the learned counsel for appellant holds good. Both the Tribunals have taken the view that the driver has violated

¶144

the conditions of the policy, as he did not possess the driving licence for goods vehicle. Para 35 of the judgment in MVC No.833/2016 and para 22 of the judgment in MVC No.176/2014 show that, the Tribunals came to the conclusion that the driver was not having valid driving licence. It is evident that both the Tribunals have not bestowed the attention on the decision laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance

¶145

Company Limited' s case. In that view of the matter, the conclusions reached by the Tribunals that there was violation of the conditions of the policy, that the driver was not having valid driving licence, is not sustainable in law. The licence to drive LMV is sufficient to drive the tractor and trailer and as such, on that ground, the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant/owner.

¶146

The second question that needs to be considered is, whether the deceased Manjunatha and the injured

¶147

19 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶148

petitioner Narasimhappa, were traveling on the tractor but not on the trailer and therefore, the insurance company can repudiate the liability.

¶149

The evidence of the injured petitioner Narasimhappa in MVC No.833/2016 shows that on 16-2-2014 at about 4.45 p.m. he was proceeding in the tractor trailer as a loader and unloader and loaded the stones at Chandrabhavi village and unloaded the same at Boda Bande Palya and while returning, the tractor capsized and caused the accident; as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and Manjunatha died in the accident. In the cross-examination, he has categorically stated that he

¶150

was sitting on the engine of the tractor. He again reiterates that he was sitting on the wheel of the tractor that is mudguard. Thus the evidence of petitionerNarasimhappa is clear in this regard. He was not sitting in the body of the trailer of the tractor.

¶151

The evidence of PW1-Ratnamma in MVC No.176/ 2014 shows that she was not an eye witness and as per

¶152

20 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶153

her information, her husband deceased Manjunatha was stuck under the engine of the tractor. She also happens to be the complainant before the police. The said complaint is produced by her at Ex.P1. It shows that she visited the spot immediately on hearing the incident and found that the deceased was stuck under the tractor.

¶154

The other documents produced by the petitioners in both these proceedings show that the deceased Manjunatha as well as the injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The inquest mahazar and statements are consistent in saying that they were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. None of these documents show that they were sitting in the body of the trailer. Thus, the fact as emanates from the oral and documentary evidence is that, the deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa were traveling on the engine of the tractor by sitting on the mudguard. They were not the passengers on the body of the trailer. This fact cannot be disputed in any way.

¶155

21 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶156

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶157

respondent No.2 -Insurance company Sri O. Mahesh, has relied upon the decision in the case of Gadhlingappa @ Gadhilinga S/o Ulluru Mallappa @ Yellappa and another (supra) and connected matters and submitted that in the said decision, a reference made by learned Single Judge was answered by the Full Bench of this Court. The questions that were referred to the Larger Bench were as below:

¶158

"i) Whether a person traveling on a mud-guard of a tractor can be construed as an authorized passenger or an unauthorized passenger and liability of such person is covered or not?

¶159

ii) Whether the persons who are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor can be construed as employees so as to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of MV Act though there is only one seating capacity in the tractor apart from the driver?

¶160

iii) Whether the crushing machine or ploughing machine or any other instrument attached to the tractor can be considered to be an attachment to the tractor so as to cover the risk of the insured in respect of employees and the policy taken in respect of the tractor alone?

¶161

iv) What is the effect of Section 147 of MV Act to cover the statutory risk under the said situation?"

¶162

22 -

¶163

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶164

The Full Bench answered the above references in

¶165

para 23 and 33 of the judgment which are as below:

¶166

"23. The Apex Court has reiterated that a tractor could lawfully accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. The Apex Court categorically held that the appellant in the said case had traveled in the tractor as a passenger even though the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver. It was categorically held that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor for the liability of a passenger traveling on the tractor. Hence, the view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred above, the liability of a person sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor is not required to be covered by statutory insurance policy, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V.Act.

¶167

xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶168

Hence, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of V.Chinnamma, Shivaraj and Darshana Devi (supra) and the analysis made above, we have no manner of doubt that a liability of a person working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor and who is traveling on the mud-guard of the tractor is not required to be covered by the statutory insurance as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V.Act."

¶169

(emphasis by me)

¶170

In view of the above conclusive finding by the larger Bench of this Court, a person who is traveling on the mudguard or any other agricultural equipment fixed to the tractor, is not covered under the statutory requirement of Section 147 of the M.V. Act and as such,

¶171

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶172

the insurance company need not cover such risk. In the light of the above judgment, it is evident that the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company . As a consequence, the liability has to be fastened on the owner of the tractor i.e. the appellant herein.

¶173

The decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and others (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, though pertains to tractor, it was not in respect of the passenger sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The question involved was, whether it can be considered as the goods vehicle requiring special endorsement in the driving licence?.

¶174

The decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi and others (supra) was rendered by a Division Bench and therefore, it cannot be of any relevance when a three Judges Bench of this Court has specifically answered the status of a passenger sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Moreover, the said decision was pertaining to the claim made under the

¶175

24 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶176

Workmens' Compensation Act, 1923. Similarly, the decision of this court in the case of Umadevi Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

¶177

Company (supra) is also concerning a petition filed under the Workmens' Compensation Act and as such, it cannot be made applicable.

¶178

So far as the decision in the case of H.M.Santhosh Vs. New India Assurance company

¶179

Limited (supra) is concerned, it was a case in respect of the loader in a goods lorry. Hence, it cannot be of any help to the appellant herein.

¶180

Thus, it is evident that when the facts involved in these cases clearly indicate that the deceased Manjunatha as well as the injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor at the time of the accident, they cannot be held to be the loaders and they are covered under the Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules.

¶181

This aspect is considered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gadhilingappa (supra). It has reiterated the

¶182

25 - NC: 2023:KHC:27457 MFA No. 9768 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 1905 of 2019

¶183

view taken by the Apex Court in the case of The New

¶184

India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Darshana Devi

¶185

and others (supra). The evidence on record clearly show that the deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa were traveling on the engine of the tractor which they were not supposed to. As such, the insurance company is not liable to cover the risk of such passengers. Hence, the impugned judgments, which fastened the liability on the owner of the tractor cannot be interfered with.

¶186

So far as the quantum is concerned, the same is not urged before this Court. The petitioners in both the proceedings have not filed any appeals or any cross objections raising the question of the quantum. Hence, the appeals are devoid of any merits and are liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:

¶187

ORDER

¶188

The appeals filed by the owner of the

¶189

offending vehicle in MFA No. 9768/2017 and MFA No.1905/2019 are dismissed.

¶190