IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Liability of tractor/its insurer extended to accident caused by tractor resulting in death of deceased who fell off Tractor trailer and suffered fatal injuries.

JUDGMENT :

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal mounts a challenge against the Final Judgment and Order dated 25.11.2022 in MFA No.3659/2014 (MV-D) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the appeal filed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 (herein) was partly allowed and the compensation awarded vide Award dated 02.04.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) was enhanced from Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to Rs.13,28,940/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty) keeping the interest component intact i.e., 6% per annum and liability was fastened on the Appellant (herein) to pay such compensation.

BRIEF FACTS :

3. On 29.02.2012, the deceased-Nagarajappa was travelling in a tractor and trailer as a coolie in order to unload the soil, which was loaded thereon. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.5 (herein), the tractor and trailer toppled causing injuries to the deceased-Nagarajappa, ultimately leading to his death. The wife and two minor daughters (Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein) of the deceased filed M.V.C. No.121/2012 before the MACT claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). The claimants in support of their case examined Respondent no.1, the wife of the deceased, as PW1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the Appellant examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R7 i.e., authority letter, policy schedule, charge-sheet, notice, agreement and RC books. The MACT after considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim vide Award dated 02.04.2014 and awarded a compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The MACT held that the risk of employee of the tractor and trailer was not statutorily covered under Section 147(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) and fastened the liability to satisfy the award on the owner (Respondent No.4 herein) and the driver.

4. The claimants filed appeal bearing MFA No.3659 of 2014 (MV-D) before the High Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. On due consideration of the material before it, the High Court vide the Impugned Order partly allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs.13,28,940/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty) payable with 6% per annum interest from the date of petition till deposit. While doing so, the High Court fastened the liability of compensation on the Appellant-insurance company. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. The appeal qua Respondent No.5-driver stands dismissed in terms of Order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge-in- Chambers. Despite due service of notice to Respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4, none appeared to represent them.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS:

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the MACT had holistically appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and had exempted the appellant from incurring any liability of compensation, which aspect has been erroneously reversed by the High Court in the Impugned Order on unsustainable grounds. It was submitted that the insurance policy did not extend any coverage, either to the trailer or employees of the owner or any passenger travelling on the trailer. Despite categorical options for risk-coverage of these categories of persons/trailer(s), it was not subscribed to by the Respondent No.4-owner/policy-holder.

7. It was argued that the High Court took a very naive and simplistic view of the matter ignoring the concerned respondent’s cate