Karnataka High Court
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Sri C S Madegowda on 16 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15659
MFA No. 6228 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6228 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO. 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE,
BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OPPOSITE B G ROAD, 2ND M B POST,
BENGALURU - 560 076,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI C S MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA,
CHIKKARASINAKERE VILLAGE,
Digitally signed MADDUR TALUK PIN 571 422.
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR DESAI 2. SRI ANAND KUMAR Y M
Location: High MAJOR IN AGE,
Court of
Karnataka S/O SRI MALLANNA,
NO. 326, YALADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI, C A KERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK, PIN 571415.
MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. THE MANAGER
SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGAR FACTORY,
K M DODDI (BHARATHINAGAR)
MADDUR TALUK, PIN-571 422.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15659
MFA No. 6228 of 2024
HC-KAR
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHU K T.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4463/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-25
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,88,200/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE
OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and award dated 01.06.2024 passed in MVC No.4463/2020 on the file of the XXIII, Additional Small causes judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 27.08.2019 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. The tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,88,178/- along with interest at the interest of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the appellant in which it is contended that the tribunal erred in considering respondent No.1 as a Loader-Unloader in Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-11-TA-3492. In spite of specific admission of the claimant that he is an employee of Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory, K.M.Doddi (Bharathinagar), Maddur Taluk, Mandya District and he ought to have been considered as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle.
5. The Insurance Company filed this appeal and contended that the tribunal erred in fixing liability on the Insurance company and the tribunal ought to have -4- NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR absolved the Insurance Company to pay the liability. The claim petition is not maintainable under Motor Vehicles Act as he is a loader/unloader and he should have filed it under Employees' Compensation Act. In spite of positive evidence, that they have insured only a tractor and not a trailer, in which respondent No.1 was travelling, the Tribunal erred in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation. There is delay of 3 days in filing the complaint. The eye witness was examined as PW4, but he did not file any complaint to the police, though he witnessed the accident. He has not taken respondent No.1 to the hospital. His behavious is contrary to the normal human behavior and it is to be discarded as unreliable. Respondent No.1 is not an employee of the Respondent No.2/employer and hence without any evidence on their part, Tribunal ignored their defence. Therefore, the Insurance Company requested to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The manner of accident shows that on 27.08.2019 while petitioner was travelling on a trailer bearing reg.No.KA-11-TA-3492 attached to the tractor bearing No. KA-15-T-9322 loading mud from Gurudevarahalli towards Chikkarinakere near C.A.Kere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, the driver of the said tractor driven it in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly severed the tractor towards the left side of the said road. As a result, petitioner fell down from the trailer and suffered grevious injuries. He was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for 4 days and underwent surgery. The petitioner stated that he was a coolie, (loader and unloader), under the respondent No.1 and was getting wages of Rs. 15,000 per month i.e. Rs.500 per day.
7. The K.M.Doddi Police have registered a case against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer in Cr.No.192/2019 offence punishable under sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the offending -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR vehicle. Both of them filed separate written statements. Respondent No.1 admitted the ownership of the trailer and tractor but stated that they insured them with Respondent No.2. He further stated that petitioner was a permanent employee at Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory, K.M.Doddi (Bharathinagar), Maddur Taluk, Mandya District and was getting salary there. He denied the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and further denied his wages as Rs.15,000/-. The respondent No.2 in his written statement admitted about the insuring of tractor with him and denied the policy issued in favour of trailer and he also denied the involvement of tractor and trailer in the accident and further stated that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid and effective driving license, as on the date of accident. The owner knowing fully, allowed the driver to ply the vehicle on the road and the tractor was not having valid permit and fitness certificate to ply in the public road. Hence, petition is not maintainable for non- -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR compliance of Section 134 (c), and Section 158 (6) of MV Act and there is non-joinder of necessary parties. Petitioner is examined as PW1 and he also examined the eye witness as PW4. In the cross-examination of PW1, he himself admitted that he is working in Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory for past 13 years and getting a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month and still working there and he has 3 shifts. First shift is from 06.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. and second shift is 02.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and night shift is 10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. Further, he has not filed any document to show that he is working as a loader/unloader and getting a salary from the respondent no.1. He examined the MRO of St.Theresa Hospital as PW2 and got marked Exs.P11 to P13 and he has not produced a MLC register extract. The complaint was given by one Krishna, resident of Gurudevarahalli, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur Taluk. As per Ex.P5, there are no visible damages found at the time of investigation. As per Ex.P3/wound certificate, he suffered simple and grievous injuries to his -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR right distal tibia commutated fracture and pain and contusion near upper incussive in an RTA at Chikkasanthekere, Maddur Taluk, Mandya. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor and trailer under Ex.P7. The respondent No.2 was examined as RW1, marked Exs.R1 and R2. Considering the said evidence, tribunal held that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailer. As per the wound certificate, Ex.P6, the petitioner suffered following injuries,
(i) Right distal tibia communitated fracture, (ii) Pain and contusion near upper incision which are simple and grievous in nature.
8. He also examined the doctor as PW3 and he verified X-ray under Exs.P14 and 15. He is not a treated doctor. He assessed the whole body disability at 12%. He further stated that there is no fracture of right fibula, fractures are united. Implants are removed and petitioner does not require any future surgery. He further stated that fibula and tibia are supporting bones to each other. He can -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR walk independently and there is no shortening of right limb. Therefore, the tribunal relied upon several citations, for ascertaining the liability of the Insurance Company, in a case where the petitioner was a loader and unloader of the vehicle and held that Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and directed them to deposit the compensation within 2 months.
9. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the citation reported in 2018 ACJ 1288 in case of Shivawwa and another and Branch manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another in which it was held that person after unloading his two cranes from tractor and trailer driver at commission agent shop and while returning, he fell off from the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and sustained injuries. The High Court held that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle along with his goods at the time of the accident and hence exonerated the Insurance Company. But the Supreme Court considering the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR evidence of the eyewitness held that company is liable to pay the compensation.
10. In Civil Appeal No.9538/2025 between Sunita & Ors Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd., and Ors. It was liability only policy and covered only third party liability as no premium was paid covering the driver or owner of the vehicle, but still even in case of gratuitous passenger, it was directed that Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the insured and invoked the principle of pay and recovery.
11. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon a citation reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7337 in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Cholleti Bharatamma and Ors. in which it was held that there was no proof that deceased was travelling in a lorry along with its driver and cleaner or as owner of the goods and travelling with goods itself does not entitle anyone for protection under section
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The difference in the definitions of goods vehicle in 1939 Act and Goods Carriage in 1988 Act is significant. The legislature intended that goods vehicle could not carry any passenger and goods carriage would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adopted for use, solely for carriage of the goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated under 1988 Act. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 223, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "any person" occurring in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act refers to a third party and does not include a passenger travelling in a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. It is further stated that now it is well settled that owner of the goods vehicles is only person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. It was finally held that the risk of the gratuitous passenger is not covered in the policy and Insurance Company is not held liable.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon the citation in case of SLP.(C) No.6117/2020 in case of Amudhavalli & Ors Vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., & Ors., wherein it was held that there is clear admission that deceased travelled in the vehicle on payment of fare. Goods vehicle is not allowed to carry the passengers unless he is owner of the goods carrier or his authorized representative. Therefore, liability is on the owner and insurer is absolved from liability. In the said case, as it is a case of no driving licence, pay and recovery was granted.
13. Learned counsel for appellant further relied upon Sanjeev Kumar Samrat Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., and Ors reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 1125 it was held as follows;
"Liability of insurer, Goods vehicle covered by Act policy, Liability towards employees carried in vehicle, Limited to
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR employees of insured, Not of employees of hirer or good vehicle. "
14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon citation in which it was stated that he has not collected the payment and there is no policy for the trailer, but the court invoked the principle of pay and recovery. The main contention of Insurance Company is that the respondent No.1 is a permanent employee in the Sugar Factory. Therefore, his contention that he was travelling in the trailer at the time of the accident as loader/unloader cannot be believed and he is a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and thus they are not liable to pay the compensation. There is no employer and employee relationship between the owner and the petitioner. They further stated that only tractor is insured but not the trailer. The trailer alone cannot be moved without the tractor. Legal officer of Insurance Company is examined as RW1. He stated that accident occurred on 27.08.2019 and complaint was given on 30.08.2019. The petitioner
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR was travelling in a trailer and they have not issued any policy as such, they are not liable. In the cross- examination, he stated that Rs.14,816/- is collected towards total premium for own damage and third party and it will not cover trailer also. He further admitted that IDV value of the trailer is given in the policy as Rs.1,50,000/- and own damage of the trailer is covered as it is attached to the tractor. It is further stated in the medical records that it was only mentioned as tractor and no registration number is given and he admitted that tractor and trailer is a live goods vehicle and he did not know that in the LGD insurance even the coolies are covered without any additional payment.
15. Learned counsel for respondent/claimant relied upon a citation reported in 2004 ACJ 1881 in case of Gunti Devaiah and Others Vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and Others. Even in that case, tractor was insured and trailer was not insured. Further in the said case, no separate insurance is contemplated for trailer and trailer is attached
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR to the tractor, which is insured and it becomes part of the tractor, "The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortious liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle, namely, a tractor or a like self propelled vehicle. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the trailer and in case of the negligent driving of the tractor or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk."
16. Further learned counsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the case reported in 2018 ACJ 2018 in case
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Muni Anjinappa and others wherein it was held as follows;
"Dominant nature of work of the claimants was loading/unloading vegetables in the goods vehicle and even though they have been appointed for a limited period, they become employees on the goods vehicle for loading/unloading of vegetables."
He was a gratuitous passenger, therefore this Court finds it reasonable to invoke the principle of pay and recovery and to direct the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and directed to recover the amount by due process of law.
17. The main case of the Insurance Company is that the policy was not issued in favour of the trailer. But the accident occurred when trailer was attached to the tractor. Due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor, who is not having any driving license, fitness or permit, the owner of the vehicle simply stated that he insured his tractor and trailer with the Insurance Company- respondent No.2. And he further stated that petitioner
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR was a permanent employee of Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory and denied employer and employee relationship with him. This goes to show that the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the trailer at the time of the accident. But the trailer is attached to the tractor. The Insurance Company issued policy to the tractor but not to the trailer. Therefore, this Court finds that petitioner is a gratuitous passenger and there is no policy to the trailer. As such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
18. Even the owner stated that there is no employer and employee relationship between him and the petitioner. He has not examined his driver, to know whether petitioner was travelling in the trailer at the time of the accident and it is not the case of both sides that he was travelling in the tractor on payment of fare. Therefore, this court finds that it is just and reasonable to exonerate the Insurance Company from paying the liability and it is not a fit case to invoke the principle of pay and recovery.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15659 MFA No. 6228 of 2024 HC-KAR Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
19. The owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs.1,88,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% from date of petition till realization, within one month from the date of this order.
On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84