ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 02.11.2023 passed in MVC No.2307/2021 by the IX ASCJ., Small Causes and Addl. MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-7), (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents/claimants by awarding compensation for a sum of Rs.32,14,000/- along with 6% interest per annum.

2. The facts apposite for consideration, as borne out from the pleadings and records, are that on 19.03.2021, at about 6:10 p.m., one Bittu Singh (since deceased), who was working as a coolie (loader-cum-unloader), was travelling in a Mini Goods Tempo bearing Registration No. KA-22/C-4052. When the said tempo reached near Unitech Gate, Bengaluru, its driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tempo toppled. Consequently, Bittu Singh sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital for treatment; however, despite medical intervention, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thereafter, an FIR came to be registered against the driver of the tempo, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against him. Subsequently, the legal representatives of the deceased Bittu Singh instituted a claim petition seeking compensation from the driver and the insurer of the offending tempo.

3. The Tribunal, on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to make good the compensation. Challenge to the same is lis before this court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy, for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. K.T. Madhu, for the respondent.

5. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company, inasmuch as the policy did not cover any person other than those contemplated under the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was submitted that the deceased was not an employee whose risk was covered under the policy of insurance and that he was travelling in the body of the goods vehicle. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the risk of the deceased was not required to be covered under the policy.

6. The learned counsel further contended that, even assuming that the deceased was an employee, the liability of the insurer would, at best, be restricted to that arising under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Placing reliance on the evidence of RW.1, the official of the Insurance Company, and Ex.R3, namely the statement of the accused, he submitted that the Tribunal had misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and, consequently, erroneously fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company. It was also contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the impugned judgment and award, contended that the Tribunal, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has passed a well-reasoned judgment and award, which does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaminiben and Others v. The Oriental Insurance Company and Others, reported in 2026 ACJ 447 contended that, in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court, keeping in view the benevolent object and purpose underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, held that the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle would be liable to satisfy the award even where the deceased was travelling in the