Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is further submitted from the evidence on record it is proved, that the claimants were sitting on mudguard of the tractor. Hence, the person who sits on the mudguard of the tractor is not covered under Section 147 of Act. In this regard, he places reliance on the following judgments:

a) Gadhilingappa and Another Vs. K.Guleppa and Others-2021 ACJ 2588

b) National Insurance Co., Ltd., & Others Vs. Chandrappa and Others - MANU/KA/0982/2011 NC: 2024:KHC:47439

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47439 Therefore, as per decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of GADHILINGAPPA's case for the persons, who travel by sitting on the mudguard, the risk is not covered as per Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and justified the judgment and award passed by the trial Court.

14. Upon considering evidence of both the claimants - Kariyappa and Bheemaiah, it is unequivocally proved that these claimants and another coolie worker by name Raju were travelling in the tractor trailor by sitting on the mudguard. The claimant Kariyappa has admitted in his cross-examination that himself, Bheemaiah and Raju were sitting on the tractor engine. The claimant Bheemaiah in his cross-examination has admitted that himself, Kariyappa and Raju were sitting on the front portion of the Tractor. Upon considering the admissions of these claimants it is unequivocally proved that the claimants were sitting either on the engine or on the

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47439 mudguard of the tractor. Since there is no space to sit on the tractor engine and therefore, it can be safely inferred from the evidence revealed that these claimants were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Then the question comes before this Court for consideration is whether for the persons who travel by sitting on the mudguard, whether the risk is covered under Section 147 of the Act. In very similar facts and circumstances involved in the case, when the above said point is referred by several judgments of Two Division Benches of this Court referred to the Full Bench and the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in GADHILINGAPPA's case has held that for persons, who travels by sitting on the mudguard, the risk is not covered as per Section 147 of the M.V. Act. It is profitable to refer the law laid down in the judgment at paragraph numbers 33 and 34 which reads as follows :-

(c) of clause (i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 147 of the MV Act, the liability of employees working on such instruments like ploughing machine or crushing machine attached to a tractor is not required to be covered by a policy of insurance in respect of a tractor issued in terms of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the MV Act."

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:47439

15. Therefore, for the persons who sit on the mudguard and travel the compulsory risk as per Section 147 of the Act is not covered. Therefore, as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the Tribunal is correct in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable, but the owner of the tractor and trailor is liable to pay compensation. The decision relied on by the counsel for the claimant/appellant in B.T. BASAVARAJA case supra, that even for the persons who sits on the mudguard of the tractor, the risk is covered under Section 147 of the M.V.Act, cannot be followed as it is per in curium and contrary to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in GADHILINGAPPA.