Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
Nagaraj, S/O Gurupadappa Galemmanavar - Appellant
Versus
The Authority Concern - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.22167 of 2012 (MV-D)
Decided on : 19-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:Sri. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE
The court established that under a commercial vehicle package policy, the insurance covers supervisors' risks despite no extra premium collected, affirming enhanced compensation due to low initial award.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) - Appeal for enhancement of compensation and liability determination - Death of Supervisor in an accident involving a concrete mixer due to negligent driving - Insurance Company exonerated by Tribunal - Court determined insurance policy covered risk of Supervisor despite extra premium not being collected. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 20)
(B) Compensation - The Tribunal's awarded amount inadequately assessed compared to legal principles established - Total compensation recalibrated to Rs.10,40,600/- including 6% interest. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The deceased Supervisor was involved in an accident on 07.01.2010 while traveling on a company vehicle, leading to his death. The Tribunal fixed liability on the vehicle owner and awarded inadequate compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- which the appellants contested.
Findings of Court:
The comprehensive nature of the commercial vehicle package policy implied that the risk of the deceased was covered. The evidence showed the Tribunal undervalued the compensation based on legal standards.
Issues: The main issues were the appropriateness of insurance coverage for the Supervisor and the adequacy of the awarded compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the commercial vehicle package policy encompasses the risk of all employees in the vehicle's cabin, thereby holding the Insurance Company liable. Compensation recalibrated to Rs.10,40,600/- with interest.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for appeal and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on insurance liability. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. analysis of insurance policy coverage. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. distinction between case precedents. (Para 11 , 17) |
| 5. quantum of compensation assessment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. final decision and order. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, by the appellants/dependants, calling in question the judgment and award dated 22.02.2012, passed in M.V.C.No.855/2010, on the file of the Fast Track-I, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for brevity) seeking enhancement of compensation and to fasten liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the deceased on 07.01.2010 at about 09.30 p.m. was attending his duties as per the direction of respondent No.1 and traveling in the concrete mixer vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-25/53/3767, the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle on Madhure-Rajanukunte road with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and near Itagal cross, the driver of the said vehicle lost control over the vehicle and toppled down on the road side ditch. Due to which, the deceased who was working as Supervisor and traveling in the cabin of the lorry concrete mixer vehicle, died.
3. Upon the claim petition filed, the Tribunal has awarded compensation by exonerating the respondent No.2- Insurance Company and fixed the liability on the respondent No.1-owner of the said vehicle.
4. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation granted and liability fastened on the owner of the vehicle in question, the appeal is preferred.
5. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the offending vehicle in question admittedly is a concrete mixer having fitted to the lorry and the deceased was working as Supervisor under the instructions and direction of respondent No.1 and died in the accident. The insurance policy is commercial vehicle package policy as per Ex.R-2. Therefore, submitted that the insurance policy is commercial vehicle policy and irrespective of the premium collected or not, the risk of the employees traveling in the cabin of lorry is also covered. Therefore, submitted that insurance company is liable to pay compensation in view of Ex.R-2-Insurance policy and also prays for enhancement of compensation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company submitted that though Ex.R-2 is a commercial vehicle package policy, but extra premium is not collected for Supervisor. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Since the deceased was working as Supervisor but not as a driver or cleaner. Under the said insurance policy, premium of Rs.25/- is only collected for driver and cleaner but not to any other persons. Therefore, justified the order passed by the Tribunal.
7. Further, learned counsel for respondent places reliance on the following judgments:
i. The Divisional Manager V/s Sri. Davalsab S/o. Allabas Hunagund and Another, [MFA No.21726/2012 c/w MFA No.22434/2012] (Davalsab S/o. Allabas Hunagund’s Case)
ii. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Saju P. Paul and Another ,
iii. K. Thirupathi Reddy V/s Rajegowda and Others , [ILR 2010 KAR 3406] (Rajegowda Case)
8. Admittedly, in the present case, the offending vehicle is a concrete mixer lorry bearing Reg.No. KA-25/53/3767. The vehicle is a lorry having open body, fitted with concrete mixer. There is a cabin to the lorry enabling seating arrangement for driver, cleaner or any other employees. This is the nature of the vehicle, which is not disputed. Admittedly, Ex.R-2 is the insurance policy which is miscellaneous and the special type of vehicle-commercial vehicle package policy. RW-1, who is Legal Executive Officer of the insurance company admitted that the insurance policy is
