IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4402 OF 2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI K C RAMESH S/O K V CHINNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE GOODS AUTO RICKSHAW NO.KA-18/8885 R/A KODIGE HALAMATTUR VILLAGE HARIHARAPURA HOBLI KOPPA TALUK CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATISH V, ADVOCATE)

Dig itally signed by NIRMALA AND:

DEVI Location:

1. SMT GIRIJA HIGH W/O LATE RAJU NAGANNA COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

2. SRI MAHESH S/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

3. MAMTHA D/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT ARAMBALLI, HALAMATTUR VILLAGE AND POST KOPPA TALUK CHIKKMAGALUR

4. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE CRESENT ROAD, K M ROAD CHIKKMAGALUR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 -SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.03.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.308/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CHICKMAGALUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,46,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A.

FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle calling in question of the judgment and award dated 15.03.2014 passed in MVC No.308/2011¹ by the I Additional District Judge and Member, MACT., Chikmagalur, Hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', whereunder the claim petition filed by the claimant has been partially allowed and a compensation of `4,46,000 has been awarded together with interest at 6% per annum. The Tribunal further directed that the compensation awarded shall be paid by respondent No.1 - owner of the vehicle and dismissed the claim petition filed against respondent No.2 - insurer. The Tribunal has held that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the insured vehicle which is a goods auto rickshaw. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that on 05.05.2010, one Sri Raju, Hereinafter referred to as 'deceased' was stated to be travelling in the goods auto rickshaw, which was owned and driven by its owner. That when the same was proceeding, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the goods auto

Hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment'

rickshaw, the said vehicle met with an accident whereunder, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. Claiming compensation for the death of the deceased, his wife and children filed the claim petition arraying the owner cum driver of the goods auto rickshaw as respondent No.1 and the insurer of the said goods auto rickshaw as respondent No.2 in the claim proceedings. The claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1. Exs.P1 to P6 were marked in evidence. The representative of the insurer was examined with RW 1. Exs. R1 to R3 were marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as noted above. However, with regard to liability, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and hence, absolved the insurer from payment of compensation and fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the vehicle.

Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed by the owner.

4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the owner that the deceased had hired the insured goods auto rickshaw to transport firewood to his house and hence, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the aspect regarding the deceased having hired the vehicle, is forthcoming from the suggestions made by the learned counsel for the insurer while cross examining RW1. Hence, it is contented that the