Harisha Vs Nadigara Murugendrappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

Harisha Vs Nadigara Murugendrappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: impugned judgment and award (Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, MVC No.264/2008, dated 28.09.2012) set aside; claim petition allowed; respondent No.1 directed to pay global compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation, to be deposited within eight weeks and released entirely to the claimant on due identification; claim against respondent No.2 (insurer) dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal is erred in not holding that accident had taken place due to involvement of the offending vehicle and the claimant had sustained injury in the said accident? +2 more

Court's answer

The copy of FIR, spot mahazer, wound certificate, IMV report and charge sheet produced by PW-1 (Exs.P1 to P7) corroborate the claim petition and were not seriously challenged in cross-examination; even RW-1 did not dispute the fact of accident. This evidence proves that the claimant met with an accident while travelling in the tractor-trailer and sustained injuries.

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal, though it discussed in its judgment that the accident had taken place, erred in answering the issue in the negative; Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

Key takeaways

Since the claimant did not examine the Medical Officer who had treated him to prove his disability, he is not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability.ratio¶71
Undisputedly a coolie, the claimant may have lost his earning during the laid-up period and, due to the fractures, lost some amenities available to a healthy person; considering all facts and circumstances he is entitled to global compensation of Rs.50,000/-.ratio¶71
Ex.R1 shows that no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of the claimant travelling in the tractor-trailer (goods vehicle); the owner did not examine the driver to show that the claimant was travelling without permission; therefore respondent No.1 (owner) is liable to pay the compensation, and Point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act, S.173(1) – Claimant's appeal against dismissal of injury claim – Accident on 21.09.2007 involving tractor-trailer KA-16-T-217374 due to rash and negligent driving; claimant, a coolie travelling in the vehicle, sustained fracture of 1/3rd of lower end of left tibia – Tribunal (Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chitradurga, MVC No.264/2008) answered issues in negative and dismissed the claim – Held: FIR, spot mahazer, wound certificate, IMV report and charge sheet (Exs.P1–P7), unchallenged in cross-examination, and RW-1's non-dispute of the accident prove the accident and injuries; Point 1 answered in affirmative – However, claimant having failed to examine the treating Medical Officer, no compensation under 'loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability'; instead, global compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition – Policy (Ex.R1) showed no extra premium covering risk of the coolie in the goods vehicle and owner did not examine the driver to prove unauthorised travel; liability fixed solely on respondent No.1 (owner/legal representative); claim against insurer (New India Assurance, respondent No.2) dismissed – Appeal partly allowed; impugned judgment and award set aside; claim petition allowed; deposit within eight weeks; entire amount releasable to claimant on due identification.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7900 OF 2013 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

HARISHA S/O. MALLESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS COOLIE, R/O. ECHALANAGENAHALLI CHITRADURGA TALUK.

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT. VIJAYA M.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

NADIGARA MURUGENDRAPPA S/O. RAJANNA, MAJOR

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILOR BEARING REG. NO.KA-16-T-2173-74 R/O. SIDDAPURA

CHITRADURGA TALUK SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

1(A) RAJANNA S/O. NADIGARA MURUGENDRAPPA 60 YEARS SIDDAPURA POST

CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501.

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

BRANCH OFFICE, B. D. ROAD CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; (V/O DATED 03.06.2025, NOTICE TO R1(A) IS HELD SUFFICIENT))

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.9.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.264/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (FAST TRACK COURT), CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.264/008.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant after attending his coolie work

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

was going home in tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-16-T-217374. The said tractor met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor. As a result of which, he sustained the fracture of 1/3rd of the lower end of the left tibia. He took treatment in the Government Hospital at Chitradurga and spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. He has been suffering from permanent disability. He was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the said accident, he lost his physical strength and became dependent. With these reasons, he prayed to award the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Respondent No.1, who was a minor at the time of filing of the objection, denied the contents of the claim petition and also denied that claimant was travelling in the said tractortrailer. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Respondent No.2/insurer filed a counter denying the contention of the claim petition and further contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

insurance and holding of a valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the tractor-trailer.

From the rival contentions of the parties, the

Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination.

The Tribunal recorded the evidence of parties to the proceedings. Thereafter, hearing the arguments answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed their claim petition by the impugned judgment and award.

I have heard the arguments of both the sides.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that fact

of the accident is not seriously disputed. A criminal case was registered against the driver of tractor-trailer and he was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. The said charge sheet has not been challenged by the driver of the said vehicle or owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal in its finding without considering the said point, answered the issues in negative only on the ground that he was a coolie working under respondent No.1(a) and the said finding is incorrect.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

Learned counsel further submits that even if the insurance company is not liable; believing that he was unauthorised passenger travelling in a goods vehicle but the owner is liable to pay the compensation. The owner has not explained in what capacity claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as on the date of the incident. With these reasons, he prayed to award reasonable compensation. He further submitted that the claimant is poor and illiterate and he was unable to examine a doctor to prove his disability. Considering the materials available on record, a reasonable amount of compensation be awarded.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, as per the contention of the claim petition, he was travelling in the tractor-trailer, which is a goods vehicle and the policy of insurance does not cover the risk of coolie. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. For the sake of discussion, even if he is considered as a coolie, the owner of the vehicle has not paid additional premium to cover the risk of coolie. Respondent No.2 has produced a copy of the policy at Ex.R1. Under these circumstances, respondent No.2 is

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

not at all responsible for payment of compensation and prayed to dismiss the appeal against respondent No.2.

The following questions are arises for my

consideration is as under;

"1. Whether the Tribunal is erred in not holding that accident had taken place due to involvement of the offending vehicle and the claimant had sustained injury in the said accident?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?

3. What order or award?"

Re: Point No.1:-

PW-1 is a claimant. In his evidence he has reiterated the contents of the claim petition. He has produced the copy of the FIR, spot mahazer, wound certificate, IMV report and charge sheet at Exs.P1 to P7. These documents corroborate the contents of the claim petition and these documents are not seriously challenged in the cross-examination of PW-1. Even in the evidence of RW-1-(Rajanna), fact of the accident is not disputed. First he contends that the claimant was not at all working as a coolie and later admits that petitioner was working

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

as a collie under him. RW-2 is an officer of respondent No.2 and in his evidence, he denied the case made out by the claimant. In his cross-examination, he pleads ignorance as to in what capacity the claimant was travelling in the said tractor-trailer. These evidence prove that claimant met with an accident while travelling in tractor-trailer and sustained injuries.

The Tribunal though in the judgment discussed that

the accident had taken place, but it answered the said issue in negative and the said finding is incorrect. For the aforesaid discussions, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.

Re: Point No.2:-

PW-1 in his evidence stated about his injuries, disability and medical expenses etc., and his facts were denied. The wound certificate i.e, Ex.P.5 reveals that he has sustained the injuries.

It is true that he has not produced supporting materials to prove the said injuries. However, the injuries are not seriously disputed and there is no cross-examination to PW.1 in this regard. Ex.P.5 is issued by Government Hospital, Chitradurga and on the basis of the said wound certificate, the

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

driver of the said tractor was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. Therefore, it could be accepted.

The claimant produced the medical records to show that he had spent towards medical expenses. In his crossexamination, he admits that in the Government hospital he was treated free of cost. Therefore, he might not have incurred expenses for treatment. Even in his evidence, he has not disclosed that he was admitted as inpatient.

Undisputedly he was a coolie. He might have lost his earning during laid-up period. He has not examined the Medical Officer who had treated him, to prove his disability. Therefore, he is not entitled for compensation under the head loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability. Due to the said fractures, he might have lost some of the amenities available to a healthy person. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, he is entitled for global compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

The claimant was travelling in a tractor-trailer. Ex.R1 shows that no extra premium was paid. Even though owner of

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

HC-KAR

the vehicle disputes that claimant was a coolie working in the said tractor, the owner has not examined the driver of the tractor to show that without permission of the driver, he was travelling in the said vehicle. Under these circumstances, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation. The claimant is also entitled for interest on the said compensation amount from the date of the claim petition till its realisation. Accordingly, above point No.2 answered partly in affirmative.

For the above said discussions, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeal is partly allowed.

ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, in MVC.No.264/2008 dated 28.09.2012 is set aside.

iii. The claim petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to pay global compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the claimant with the

NC: 2025:KHC:18615 MFA No. 7900 of 2013

10 -

HC-KAR

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

iv. Claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed.

v. Respondent No.1 shall deposit above said amount with interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of the award.

vi. The amount of compensation is meager. Therefore, entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of claimant on due identification.

vii. Send back TCR with copy of judgment to trial Court.

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1