Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:27457 Company Limited5 and in the case of Sri H.M. Santhosh Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited6. He also relied on the decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh7.

19. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company in both the appeals contended that the chargesheet as well as the other police papers produced by the petitioners show that deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the tractor and not on the trailer. The cross- examination of Narasimhappa shows that he was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and also the evidence clearly establish that they were not the travelers on the trailer. Therefore, he contends that when the seating capacity of the vehicle was only one, they were not supposed to travel on the tractor and as such, they become the unauthorized passengers on the vehicle. He submits that both the Tribunals have come to the conclusion that the deceased as well as the injured MFA No.5249/2015 DD 2-12-2022 MFA Nos.8359/2018 C.W.MFA No.1976/2018 DD 6-4-2023 2017 AIAR (Civil)734

20. He also submitted that a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Gadhlingappa @ Gadhilinga S/o Ulluru Mallappa Vs. K.Guleppa S/o Lingappa and others8 empathetically lays down that the insurance company need not cover the liability of the persons who suffers injuries by traveling on the mudguard or any other attachment fixed to the tractor. Therefore, he contends that the Full Bench Decision of this Court is clear and categorical in laying down the principles so far as the MFA CROB 100001/2016 & Con.matters DD 20-4-2021

29. The other documents produced by the petitioners in both these proceedings show that the deceased Manjunatha as well as the injured Narasimhappa were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The inquest mahazar and statements are consistent in saying that they were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. None of these documents show that they were sitting in the body of the trailer. Thus, the fact as emanates from the oral and documentary evidence is that, the deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa were traveling on the engine of the tractor by sitting on the mudguard. They were not the passengers on the body of the trailer. This fact cannot be disputed in any way.

33. The decision in the case of Sant Lal Vs. Rajesh and others (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, though pertains to tractor, it was not in respect of the passenger sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The question involved was, whether it can be considered as the goods vehicle requiring special endorsement in the driving licence?.

34. The decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Maruthi and others (supra) was rendered by a Division Bench and therefore, it cannot be of any relevance when a three Judges Bench of this Court has specifically answered the status of a passenger sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Moreover, the said decision was pertaining to the claim made under the