IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4914 OF 2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH SHANKARAPPA DODDAMANI S/O.SHANKARAPPA DODDAMANI AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.53, NELANAGAR BANGALAKOTE PRESENTLY R/AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1. MANJUNATHA S/O.LAKSHMAIAH MAJOR RESIDING AT LAKSHMISAGARA VILLAGE NARASAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563 101
• 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, BAGALUR MANSION DODDAPET, KOLAR-563 101 REP.BY ITS MANAGER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC.NO.372/2013 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND MACT, KOLAR AND FASTEN THE LIABILITY ON BOTH THE RESPONDENTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar (for short "the Tribunal"), in MVC No.372/2013 seeking enhancement of compensation and to fasten the liability on both the respondents jointly and severally.

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

3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 30.03.2013, the claimant was travelling as an unloader in the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP-27-W-4754 and W-4753 with crushed stone (jelly) in it. The driver of the

said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a consequence, the claimant fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries, for which he took treatment. He has suffered permanent disability and accordingly, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 has not filed any written statement. However, respondent No.2 has filed written statement denying the contents of the claim petition. He stated that the claimant was a passenger in the goods vehicle and therefore, he is not entitled to compensation. It also denied its liability to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and recorded the evidence.

6. In support of his case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondents examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.R1 to R3.

7. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal awarded following amount of compensation:

Pain and suffering	Rs.25,000-00
Injury sustained	Rs.25,000-00
Treatment and medical expenses	Rs. 5,800-00
Food,<br>nourishment,<br>conveyance<br>and	Rs. 5,000-00
attendant charges
Loss of amenities	Rs.25,000-00
Total	Rs.85,800-00

8. However, the Tribunal observed that the claimant was seated on the tractor, and even if it is assumed that he was traveling in the trailer, he was a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, directed the owner of tractor to pay compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant on the lower side and the amount of compensation awarded on all the heads are inadequate.

He further contended that the tribunal has erred in fastening the liability and directing the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that there is no reason to interfere in the finding of the Tribunal.

11. Heard learned counsel for appellant-claimant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer. Perused the materials on record.

12. Though learned counsel for claimant contended that the claimant has been suffering from permanent disability, he has not examined the Medical Officer, who had treated him. Looking at the amount of compensation awarded under different heads, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation under

the head of 'pain and suffering'. Therefore, there is no need to reconsider it.

13. The Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of earning during laid up period and even the amount of compensation awarded under the head food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges is on the lower side. The claimant initially took treatment in a private Hospital and thereafter in Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. Considering all these aspects, the claimant is entitled for enhanced global compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

14. The Tribunal, in para-16 of the impugned judgment, has observed that respondent No.2-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on two grounds, one is, that claimant was traveling on the engine of the tractor, which is a complete violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the second one is, he was

a coolie travelling in the trailer. However, both the findings are erroneous and contrary to the facts of the case. Neither in the pleading nor in the evidence of PW.1 or RW.1 or in the documents placed on record, it is stated that he was travelling on a mudguard of the tractor. Consistently, it was stated by the claimant that he was travelling on the trailer of the tractor sitting on the goods filled in the trailer. In his cross-examination, it was not suggested that he was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor. When no such case is made out, the finding of the tribunal in this regard is erroneous.

15. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment observed that extra premium was paid by the owner of the tractor to cover the risk of loader and unloader. The FIR also indicates that the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as a loader and unloader and hence, is a workman of respondent No.1 and directly covered under the policy of the insurance, which is not disputed by RW.1. Under such circumstances, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the same, interference in the impugned judgment is required.

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

• i) The appeal is allowed-in-part;
• ii) The judgment and award dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar in MVC No.372/2013 stands modified;
• iii) The claimant is entitled for enhanced global compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization;
• iv) The claimant is not entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the delayed period of 178 days in filing the appeal;
• v) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation;

• vi) Respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay entire amount of compensation;
• vii) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of award.
• viii) The amount of compensation awarded is marginal. Hence, the entire amount is ordered to be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification;
• ix) Registry to send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment;
• x) No order as to costs;
• xi) Draw award accordingly.

Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12