Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Sri C S Madegowda

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Analysis of the law | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Sri C S Madegowda on 16 March, 2026

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15659
MFA No. 6228 of 2024

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                         BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
               MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6228 OF 2024 (MV-I)
               BETWEEN:
               SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
               REGIONAL OFFICE,
               NO. 5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S V ARCADE,
               BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
               OPPOSITE B G ROAD, 2ND M B POST,
               BENGALURU - 560 076,
               REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
                                                             ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO., ADVOCATE)
               AND:

               1.    SRI C S MADEGOWDA
                     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
                     S/O SIDDEGOWDA,
                     CHIKKARASINAKERE VILLAGE,

Digitally signed MADDUR TALUK PIN 571 422.
by
PADMASHREE
SHEKHAR DESAI 2. SRI ANAND KUMAR Y M
Location: High MAJOR IN AGE,
Court of
Karnataka S/O SRI MALLANNA,
NO. 326, YALADAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI, C A KERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK, PIN 571415.
MANDYA DISTRICT.

               3.    THE MANAGER
                     SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGAR FACTORY,
                     K M DODDI (BHARATHINAGAR)
                     MADDUR TALUK, PIN-571 422.
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:15659
                                         MFA No. 6228 of 2024

HC-KAR

MANDYA DISTRICT.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MADHU K T.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED IN MVC
NO.4463/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU SCCH-25
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,88,200/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE
OF DEPOSIT.

 THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

14.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

                    CAV JUDGMENT This appeal   is    filed    by   the    appellant/Insurance

Company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988, to set aside the judgment and award dated

01.06.2024 passed in MVC No.4463/2020 on the file of

the XXIII, Additional Small causes judge, Bengaluru.

1. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.1.

The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for

the sake of convenience.

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

1. Injured claimant met with an accident on

27.08.2019 and filed claim petition claiming compensation

of Rs.10 lakhs. The tribunal considering the entire

evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,88,178/-

along with interest at the interest of 6% p.a., from the

date of petition till realization.

1. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by

the appellant in which it is contended that the tribunal

erred in considering respondent No.1 as a Loader-Unloader

in Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-11-TA-3492. In spite of

specific admission of the claimant that he is an employee

of Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory, K.M.Doddi

(Bharathinagar), Maddur Taluk, Mandya District and he

ought to have been considered as a gratuitous passenger

in a goods vehicle.

1. The Insurance Company filed this appeal and

contended that the tribunal erred in fixing liability on the

Insurance company and the tribunal ought to have

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

absolved the Insurance Company to pay the liability. The

claim petition is not maintainable under Motor Vehicles Act as he is a loader/unloader and he should have filed it

under Employees' Compensation Act. In spite of positive

evidence, that they have insured only a tractor and not a

trailer, in which respondent No.1 was travelling, the

Tribunal erred in making the appellant liable to pay the

compensation. There is delay of 3 days in filing the

complaint. The eye witness was examined as PW4, but he

did not file any complaint to the police, though he

witnessed the accident. He has not taken respondent No.1

to the hospital. His behavious is contrary to the normal

human behavior and it is to be discarded as unreliable.

Respondent No.1 is not an employee of the Respondent

No.2/employer and hence without any evidence on their

part, Tribunal ignored their defence. Therefore, the

Insurance Company requested to set aside the order

passed by the Tribunal.

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

1. The manner of accident shows that on

27.08.2019 while petitioner was travelling on a trailer

bearing reg.No.KA-11-TA-3492 attached to the tractor

bearing No. KA-15-T-9322 loading mud from

Gurudevarahalli towards Chikkarinakere near

C.A.Kere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, the driver

of the said tractor driven it in a rash and negligent manner

and suddenly severed the tractor towards the left side of

the said road. As a result, petitioner fell down from the

trailer and suffered grevious injuries. He was admitted in

the hospital as an inpatient for 4 days and underwent

surgery. The petitioner stated that he was a coolie, (loader

and unloader), under the respondent No.1 and was getting

wages of Rs. 15,000 per month i.e. Rs.500 per day.

1. The K.M.Doddi Police have registered a case

against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer in

Cr.No.192/2019 offence punishable under sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is

owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the offending

                                       NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

vehicle. Both of them filed separate written statements.

Respondent No.1 admitted the ownership of the trailer and

tractor but stated that they insured them with Respondent

No.2. He further stated that petitioner was a permanent

employee at Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory,

K.M.Doddi (Bharathinagar), Maddur Taluk, Mandya

District and was getting salary there. He denied the

relationship of employer and employee between the

petitioner and further denied his wages as Rs.15,000/-.

The respondent No.2 in his written statement admitted

about the insuring of tractor with him and denied the

policy issued in favour of trailer and he also denied the

involvement of tractor and trailer in the accident and

further stated that the driver of the tractor was not

holding valid and effective driving license, as on the date

of accident. The owner knowing fully, allowed the driver

to ply the vehicle on the road and the tractor was not

having valid permit and fitness certificate to ply in the

public road. Hence, petition is not maintainable for non-

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

compliance of Section 134 (c), and Section 158 (6) of MV

Act and there is non-joinder of necessary parties.

Petitioner is examined as PW1 and he also examined the

eye witness as PW4. In the cross-examination of PW1, he

himself admitted that he is working in Chamundeshwari

Sugar Factory for past 13 years and getting a salary of

Rs.25,000/- per month and still working there and he has

3 shifts. First shift is from 06.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. and

second shift is 02.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. and night shift is

10.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m. Further, he has not filed any

document to show that he is working as a loader/unloader

and getting a salary from the respondent no.1. He

examined the MRO of St.Theresa Hospital as PW2 and got

marked Exs.P11 to P13 and he has not produced a MLC

register extract. The complaint was given by one Krishna,

resident of Gurudevarahalli, C.A.Kere Hobli, Maddur

Taluk. As per Ex.P5, there are no visible damages found

at the time of investigation. As per Ex.P3/wound

certificate, he suffered simple and grievous injuries to his

                                        NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

right distal tibia commutated fracture and pain and

contusion near upper incussive in an RTA at

Chikkasanthekere, Maddur Taluk, Mandya. The charge

sheet is filed against the driver of the tractor and trailer

under Ex.P7. The respondent No.2 was examined as RW1,

marked Exs.R1 and R2. Considering the said evidence,

tribunal held that there was negligence on the part of the

driver of the tractor and trailer. As per the wound

certificate, Ex.P6, the petitioner suffered following injuries,

(i) Right distal tibia communitated fracture, (ii) Pain and

contusion near upper incision which are simple

and grievous in nature.

1. He also examined the doctor as PW3 and he

verified X-ray under Exs.P14 and 15. He is not a treated

doctor. He assessed the whole body disability at 12%. He

further stated that there is no fracture of right fibula,

fractures are united. Implants are removed and petitioner

does not require any future surgery. He further stated that

fibula and tibia are supporting bones to each other. He can

                                        NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

walk independently and there is no shortening of right

limb. Therefore, the tribunal relied upon several citations,

for ascertaining the liability of the Insurance Company, in

a case where the petitioner was a loader and unloader of

the vehicle and held that Insurance Company is liable to

pay the compensation and directed them to deposit the

compensation within 2 months.

1. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the

citation reported in 2018 ACJ 1288 in case of Shivawwa

and another and Branch manager, National

Insurance Co. Ltd., and another in which it was held

that person after unloading his two cranes from tractor

and trailer driver at commission agent shop and while

returning, he fell off from the vehicle due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and sustained

injuries. The High Court held that the deceased was

travelling in the goods vehicle along with his goods at the

time of the accident and hence exonerated the Insurance

Company. But the Supreme Court considering the

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

evidence of the eyewitness held that company is liable to

pay the compensation.

1. In Civil Appeal No.9538/2025 between [Sunita &

Ors Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd., and Ors. It](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81898294/) was liability only policy and covered only third party

liability as no premium was paid covering the driver or

owner of the vehicle, but still even in case of gratuitous

passenger, it was directed that Insurance Company was

liable to pay the compensation and then recover the same

from the insured and invoked the principle of pay and

recovery.

1. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon a

citation reported in 2007 AIR SCW 7337 in case of [National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Cholleti Bharatamma

and Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/564628/) in which it was held that there was no proof that

deceased was travelling in a lorry along with its driver and

cleaner or as owner of the goods and travelling with goods

itself does not entitle anyone for protection under section

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The difference in the

definitions of goods vehicle in 1939 Act and Goods

Carriage in 1988 Act is significant. The legislature

intended that goods vehicle could not carry any passenger

and goods carriage would mean a motor vehicle

constructed or adopted for use, solely for carriage of the

goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not

contemplated under 1988 Act. In [New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani & Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/857052/), (2003) 2 SCC 223, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "any

person" occurring in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act

refers to a third party and does not include a passenger

travelling in a goods carriage whether gratuitous or

otherwise. It is further stated that now it is well settled

that owner of the goods vehicles is only person who

travels in the cabin of the vehicle. It was finally held that

the risk of the gratuitous passenger is not covered in the

policy and Insurance Company is not held liable.

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

1. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon the

citation in case of SLP.(C) No.6117/2020 in case of [Amudhavalli & Ors Vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance

Company Ltd., & Ors.](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165425082/), wherein it was held that there is

clear admission that deceased travelled in the vehicle on

payment of fare. Goods vehicle is not allowed to carry the

passengers unless he is owner of the goods carrier or his

authorized representative. Therefore, liability is on the

owner and insurer is absolved from liability. In the said

case, as it is a case of no driving licence, pay and recovery

was granted.

1. Learned counsel for appellant further relied upon [Sanjeev Kumar Samrat Vs National Insurance Co.

Ltd., and Ors](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89183125/) reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court

1125 it was held as follows;

"Liability of insurer, Goods vehicle
covered by Act policy, Liability towards
employees carried in vehicle, Limited to

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

employees of insured, Not of employees of
hirer or good vehicle. "
14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon

citation in which it was stated that he has not collected the

payment and there is no policy for the trailer, but the

court invoked the principle of pay and recovery. The main

contention of Insurance Company is that the respondent

No.1 is a permanent employee in the Sugar Factory.

Therefore, his contention that he was travelling in the

trailer at the time of the accident as loader/unloader

cannot be believed and he is a gratuitous passenger in a

goods vehicle and thus they are not liable to pay the

compensation. There is no employer and employee

relationship between the owner and the petitioner. They

further stated that only tractor is insured but not the

trailer. The trailer alone cannot be moved without the

tractor. Legal officer of Insurance Company is examined

as RW1. He stated that accident occurred on 27.08.2019

and complaint was given on 30.08.2019. The petitioner

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

was travelling in a trailer and they have not issued any

policy as such, they are not liable. In the cross-

examination, he stated that Rs.14,816/- is collected

towards total premium for own damage and third party

and it will not cover trailer also. He further admitted that

IDV value of the trailer is given in the policy as

Rs.1,50,000/- and own damage of the trailer is covered as

it is attached to the tractor. It is further stated in the

medical records that it was only mentioned as tractor and

no registration number is given and he admitted that

tractor and trailer is a live goods vehicle and he did not

know that in the LGD insurance even the coolies are

covered without any additional payment.

1. Learned counsel for respondent/claimant relied

upon a citation reported in 2004 ACJ 1881 in case of [Gunti Devaiah and Others Vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and

Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/904924/). Even in that case, tractor was insured and trailer

was not insured. Further in the said case, no separate

insurance is contemplated for trailer and trailer is attached

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

to the tractor, which is insured and it becomes part of the

tractor,

       "The principle of claim for compensation in
       accidents arising out of the use of the
       motor vehicle is based on tortious liability
       and the negligence of the driver of the
       motor vehicle is a sine qua non for
       maintaining a claim under the provisions of
       the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself
       cannot be driven and it has to be carried
       or towed with a motor vehicle, namely, a
       tractor or a like self propelled vehicle.
       Therefore, the question of driving the
       trailer in a rash and negligent manner
       would not arise. It is only the prime mover
       or the motor vehicle which controls
       movement of the trailer and in case of the
       negligent driving of the tractor or the
       motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle
       and its insurer alone will be made liable for
       payment of compensation. But, since the
       trailer is attached can it be said that trailer
       should also be independently insured so as
       to avoid the liability of compensation in
       case of rash and negligent driving by the
       driver. That contingency would not arise,
       as it is only a vehicle and not a motor
       vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is
       treated as a goods vehicle. But under the
       provisions of the [Motor Vehicles Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/785258/) no
       separate insurance is contemplated. When
       the trailer is attached to the tractor it
       becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no
       provision requiring the trailer to be
       separately insured to cover the third party
       risk."

1. Further learned counsel for respondent No.1

relied upon the case reported in 2018 ACJ 2018 in case

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

between [United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Muni

Anjinappa and others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78027201/) wherein it was held as follows;

"Dominant nature of work of the
claimants was loading/unloading
vegetables in the goods vehicle and
even though they have been
appointed for a limited period, they
become employees on the goods
vehicle for loading/unloading of
vegetables."
He was a gratuitous passenger, therefore this Court finds

it reasonable to invoke the principle of pay and recovery

and to direct the Insurance Company to deposit the

amount and directed to recover the amount by due

process of law.

1. The main case of the Insurance Company is that

the policy was not issued in favour of the trailer. But the

accident occurred when trailer was attached to the tractor.

Due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor, who is

not having any driving license, fitness or permit, the

owner of the vehicle simply stated that he insured his

tractor and trailer with the Insurance Company-

respondent No.2. And he further stated that petitioner

• 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

was a permanent employee of Chamundeshwari Sugar

Factory and denied employer and employee relationship

with him. This goes to show that the petitioner was a

gratuitous passenger travelling in the trailer at the time of

the accident. But the trailer is attached to the tractor. The

Insurance Company issued policy to the tractor but not to

the trailer. Therefore, this Court finds that petitioner is a

gratuitous passenger and there is no policy to the trailer.

As such, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the

compensation.

1. Even the owner stated that there is no employer

and employee relationship between him and the petitioner.

He has not examined his driver, to know whether

petitioner was travelling in the trailer at the time of the

accident and it is not the case of both sides that he was

travelling in the tractor on payment of fare. Therefore, this

court finds that it is just and reasonable to exonerate the

Insurance Company from paying the liability and it is not a

fit case to invoke the principle of pay and recovery.

• 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15659

HC-KAR

    Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

1. The owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit

compensation amount of Rs.1,88,200/- with interest at

the rate of 6% from date of petition till realization, within

one month from the date of this order.

On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw

the entire amount along with interest accrued on it.

Sd/-

(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE

AKV
CT:NR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84