Sunil Naika.O Vs Krishna Naika

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2211 OF 2015 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUNIL NAIKA .O, S/O ONKARANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O KENCHAPURA VILLAGE, TUPPADAHALLI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, NOW R/AT MOUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, MOUNESHWARA EXTN., NITUVALLI, NEW EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE 1. KRISHNA NAIKA, SHEKHAR S/O RAMA NAIKA, DESAI AGED 40 YEARS, Location: High DRIVER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER, Court of Karnataka NA KA-42/T-2749 & KA-16/T-4892, R/O SIHI NEERUKATTE VILLAGE, HOLALKERE TALUK-577526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶12

LOKESHAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OWNER OF TRACTOR TRAILER NO KA-42/T-2749 &

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

KA-16/T-4892, R/O KENCHAPURA VILLAGE, TUPPADAHALLI POST, HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶16

B T JAYADEVAPPA S/O THIPPANNA MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAILER BEARING NO KA-16/T-4892, R/O RANGAPURA VILLAGE HOLALKERE TALUK-577 526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MELAGIRI PLAZA, OPP. DENTAL COLLEGE, MCC ‘B’ BLOCK, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶18

KALEGOWDA S/O MARI KALEGOWDA MAJOR OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO KA-42/T-2749 R/O KOUSHALA SANDA GRAMA KANAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R4, V/O DTD: 21.02.2018, NOTICED TO R1 AND R3 IS D/W, R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED14.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.828/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER MACT-IV, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

CAV JUDGMENT

¶27

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 passed in MVC No.828/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-IV, Davanagere for enhancing the compensation and fix the liability on the fourth respondent Insurance company.

¶28

Heard the arguments of Sri Shashidhar R., learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Manjula N.Tejaswi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶29

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The brief facts of the case is that on 18.07.2010 at about 12.00 noon petitioner/Sunil Naika had gone for coolie work to fill the soil in the tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-42/T-2749 and KA-16/T-4892. While proceeding in the said vehicle from Betadurkere towards Devarahosahalli village, driver of the said tractor trailer drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, due to which petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injury on his right leg, thigh and there was fracture of elbow and injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Bapuji hospital, Davanagere wherein he was inpatient from 18.07.2010 to 30.08.2010. Respondent No.1 is the driver, Respondent No.3 is the owner of the trailer and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the trailer. Insurance policy is in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, respondents are jointly entitled to pay the compensation. Hence he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶32

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on

¶35

record, granted an amount of Rs.50,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from date of petition till deposit.

¶36

Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred this appeal and learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle though the policy was in force as on the date of accident and it covered the liability of the coolie traveling in the vehicle. He further contended that meager amounts are granted under all the heads. He was inpatient for 43 days. Though the doctor assessed the disability at 35%, the Tribunal has taken only at 5%. Since the driver of the offending vehicle is having license to drive the tractor, the Tribunal held that the driver of the offending vehicle has got valid and effective driving license and fixed the liability on the owner. He therefore requested for modification of the judgment.

¶37

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed objections stating that liability is subject to production of valid driving licence, RC and Insurance policy terms and conditions. It is further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence. Respondent No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of Tractor bearing No.KA 42/T 2749 and KA 16/T 4892 from true owner Kalegowda, S/o Mari Kalegowda, as such said Kalegowda is necessary and property party to this case.

¶40

Respondent No.4 has filed objections stating that the petitioner was working as coolie on 18.07.2010 in the tractor belonging to respondent No.2 and at that time driver of the tractor trailer No.KA-42/T 2749 and KA 16/T4892 drove the same in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The tractor bearing No.KA-42/T 2749 was not insured with respondent No.4 at the time of accident. The trailer bearing No.KA-16/T 4892 was insured along with tractor bearing No.KA 16 T 4891 with respondent No.3. The trailer cannot be propelled without

¶41

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the aid of the tractor. Since the tractor involved in the accident was not insured with respondent No.4, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay compensation. The alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.KA 42/T 2749 and hence the owner and insurer of the said tractor are necessary parties and the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. Respondent No.1 did not possess valid licence to drive the tractor-trailer but he was possessing licence only to drive LMV (tractor). Respondent No.2 has entrusted his vehicle to respondent No.1 knowing fully well that respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective licence, thereby violated the policy conditions. Therefore, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay any compensation. Charge sheet is filed against respondent No.1 Krishna Naika.

¶44

Petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor as PW.2 Orthopedic Surgeon. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate which shows that the petitioner sustained

¶45

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

fracture of right shaft femur. He complained pain in right thigh, fever on and off difficulty in walking long distance. On examination limping, surgical scar present over right thigh, sinus present, pus discharge, tenderness present deformity present on right knee, stiffness present with flexin 20 degree, painful and restrict. Considering the clinical, radiological and functional factors, the doctor opined that petitioner has got 35% disability and issued certificate under Ex.P12. As per Ex.P4 petitioner is having swelling in the middle thigh and abnormal mobility and tenderness present in the right thigh and displacement of middle one-third of shaft of right femur.

¶48

The Tribunal has taken the disability at 5% and his monthly income at Rs.3,000/- It was observed that petitioner was aged 19 years and multiplier was taken as 16. The petitioner met with the accident on 18.07.2010, as such notional income has to be taken at Rs.5,500/- per month as per the chart prepared by Karnataka Legal Services Authority and multiplier has to be taken as 18.

¶49

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The doctor assessed the disability at 35%, one third of the same comes to 12%. Hence loss of future earning capacity comes to * Rs.1,42,560/- (5500 X 12 X 18 X 12%).

¶52

Petitioner was hospitalized for 43 days. He filed medical bills to the extent of Rs.34,026/-. But the Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/- on the ground that some of the medical bills are not supported by prescriptions. Considering the nature of injuries and the period of hospitalization, this Court finds it reasonable to award Rs.34,026/- towards medical expenses. Further, petitioner is entitled to Rs.30,000/towards transportation.

¶53

Considering the nature of injuries, petitioner is entitled to Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities. Petitioner could not have worked for at least 4 months due to the injuries sustained by him. Hence he is entitled for a sum of

¶54

*Corrected vide Court order dtd 17.04.2026.

¶55

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Rs.22,000 (5500 X4) under the head loss of income during

¶58

laid up period.

¶59

Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶60

is enhanced from Rs.50,900/- to Rs. _ 2,78,586/-_* along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as per the table below:

¶61

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1	Future loss of earning capacity	*1,42,560/-
2	Medical expenses	34,026/-
3	Transportation	30,000/-
4	Pain and suffering	30,000/-
5	Loss of amenities	20,000/-
6	Loss of income during laid up period	22,000/-
	Total	*2,78,586/-

¶62

Respondent No.1 is the driver of tractor and

¶63

trailer bearing No.KA-42/T-2749 and KA-16/T-4892 and Respondent No.2 is owner of the tractor bearing No.KA42/T 2749. Respondent No.3 is owner of the trailer bearing No.KA 16/T-4892 and Respondent No.4 is the

¶64

*Corrected vide Court order dtd 17.04.2026.

¶65

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

insurer of the said trailer. Respondent No.5 is the previous owner of tractor bearing No.KA-42/T2749. R5 remained ex-parte.

¶68

The tractor bearing No.KA-16/T-4891 and trailer bearing No. KA-16/T-4892 are insured. But at the time of the accident, the trailer No.KA-16/T-4892 was tagged along with tractor bearing No.KA-42 T-2749 and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T-2749. But the said tractor is not insured. The driver of the tractor produced his DL under Ex.D10 and it shows that he has license to drive LMV (tractor). Hence he has no driving license to drive the tractor and trailer.

¶69

RW.4/Administrative officer of

¶70

respondent/insurance company clearly stated that tractor bearing No.KA-42 T-2749 is not insured with their company. But, trailer bearing No.KA-16/T-4892 is insured. As the tractor involved in the accident was not insured with them, they are not liable to pay the compensation.

¶71

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Respondent No.3 is owner of the trailer No. KA-16/T-4892. Ex.R4 is the copy of the Insurance policy for the tractor bearing No.KA-16/T-4891. It is stated that as per Ex.R2/certificate of registration relating to Vehicle No.KA42 T 2749, one Kalegowda, S/o Marikalegowda, R/o Ramanagar District was the owner and later it was transferred in the name of Respondent No.2 on 03.04.2010. Accident took place on 18.07.2010. Therefore as on the date of accident, respondent No.2 is the owner of the tractor bearing No.KA 42/T-2749. Respondent No.2 filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief as RW.2 and admitted that he is the owner of the tractor. He further stated that he engaged respondent No.1 for driving the tractor along with the trailer and for filling soil in the tractor trailer at his land. He further stated that on that day there was no accident, he never called petitioner for coolie work and the petitioner has filed false case against him. Respondent No.2 has not produced copy of the insurance policy relating to the tractor bearing No.KA-42-

¶74

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

T-2749. The Tribunal held that as there is no policy, respondent No.2/owner of the tractor bearing No.KA-42-T2749 and respondent No.3/owner of the trailer bearing No. KA-16/T-4892 are liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay the compensation, but R1 to R3 are jointly are liable to pay the compensation. It is nowhere mentioned as to why the trialer bearing No.KA-16/T-4892 was tagged on to the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T 2749 when both the tractor KA-16/T-4891 and trailer KA-16/T-4892 belonged to respondent No.3 and both of them were insured.

¶77

Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a citation reported in the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D. Laxman and others¹ in which it was held that motor vehicle includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use on roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes trailer attached to the tractor not covered by insurance policy. Tractor and trailer requires

¶78

1 ILR 2006 Kar 4355

¶79

14 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

registration separately in order to claim compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Trailer is also required to be insured under Section 146 of the Act. The coolies carried in a trailer which is not covered by insurance policy, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

¶83

She relied on another citation in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd vs. Smt. Honnamma and others reported in SLP (Civil) No.2135/2023 in which it was held that trailer has to be separately registered with the Insurance company to make it liable.

¶84

Appellant’s counsel relied upon a citation in Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and others

¶85

reported in 2015 9 SCC 273 in which it was held as follows:

¶86

“There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has

¶87

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. However, in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. In such case, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.

¶90

It was finally held that in case of composite negligence claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of the joint tortfeasors is joint and several etc.

¶91

16 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

He relied on another citation in Nagashetty vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd² in which it was held as follows:

¶95

“Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become a disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.

¶96

In this case there is no dispute regarding the accident and involvement of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T/2749 and trailer bearing NO.KA 16/T-4892. But, the

¶97

2 (2001)8 SCC 56

¶98

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

trailer is insured with respondent No.4 and tractor is not insured. However, accident occurred on 18.07.2010 when tractor bearing No.KA 42 T/2749 was proceeding along with the trailer No.KA 16 T/4892. As such the charge sheet is filed against driver of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T 2749. It is contented that the driver of the tractor is only having LMV tractor driver licence as per Ex.D10. Therefore, the argument of the insurance company that he has no valid driving license cannot be accepted.

¶101

Initially when respondent No.5-Kalegowda was owner of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T 2749, but he transferred it in the name of Respondent No.2 on 03.04.2010, i.e.,prior to the accident. Therefore this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct respondent No.4/Insurance company of respondent No.3 to deposit the entire amount as the trailer was insured with them. The entire compensation of Rs. *2,78,586/- shall be deposited by the respondent No.4/Insurance company as the trailer is insured with them. However, the Insurance

¶102

*Corrected vide Court order dtd 17.04.2026.

¶103

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

company is at liberty to recover 50% of the compensation from Respondent No.2/owner of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T/2749 as there was no insurance for the said tractor. On such deposit petitioner is permitted to recover entire amount along with interest accordingly.

¶106

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶107

ORDER

¶108

i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶109

ii) The judgment and award dated 14.08.2014 passed in MVC No.828/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & Member MACT – IV, Davanagere is modified.

¶110

iii) The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. **_2,78,586/-_* along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, instead of Rs.50,900/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶111

iv) Respondent No.4/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs. **_2,78,586_ /-* along with the interest at the rate of 6% within one month from the

¶112

*Corrected vide Court order dtd 17.04.2026.

¶113

19 -

¶114

NC: 2026:KHC:16445 MFA No. 2211 of 2015

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

date of this order. However, respondent No.4/Insurance company is at liberty to recover 50% of the compensation from Respondent No.2/owner of the tractor bearing No.KA 42 T/2749 as there was no insurance for the said tractor.

¶117

v) On such deposit petitioner is permitted to recover entire amount along with interest accordingly.

¶118

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶119

AKC CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Sunil Naika.O v. Krishna Naika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Naika.O v. Krishna Naika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkatesh Vs Ankitha P

Smt. Sefiya Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

P Chinnanna Vs the Manager

Smt Niveditha D L Also Known as Shrianvitha D L Vs Mr L Hareesh

Smt Suma N Vs Sri Satish M v

Sri Y M Nagaraju Vs M/S Bharati Axa Gen Ins Co. Ltd.