B.T. PATIL and MAHALAXMI JOINT VENTURE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

MFA CROB NO.100001/2016 IN MFA NO.102649/2015 CONNECTED WITH MFA NO.22106/2012, MFA NO.23434/2012, MFA NO.102649/2015, MFA NO.102650/2015, MFA NO.102651/2015, MFA NO.296/2016, MFA CROB NO.100002/2016 IN MFA NO.102650/2015, MFA CROB NO.100003/2016 IN MFA NO.102651/2015 AND MFA CROB NO.100128/2016 IN MFA NO.23434/2012

IN MFA.CROB No.100001 OF 2016 IN MFA NO.102649/2015

BETWEEN

1 . GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA S/O ULLURU MALLAPPA @ YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

- 2 - OCC:LABOUR R/O:NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

2 . BHAGYAMMA W/O GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC:HOUSE WIFE, R/O:NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY ...CROSS OBJECTORS

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

AND 1 . K. GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

2 . HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

3 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER BELLARY …RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH VCO DATED 13.12.2012. BY SMT PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

- 3 - THIS MFA CROB IN MFA 102649/2015 FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.559/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA No.22106 OF 2012 BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUJATHA COMPLEX, HUBBALLI ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

AND 1 . SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SHANMUKAPPA AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI R/O YALGERI, TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, NOW AT MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.

2 . SRI SHANMUKAAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O YALGERI, TQ: SHIKARIPUR, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA-15/T-4484 …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED, SRI. LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

- 4 -

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.03.2012, PASSED IN MVC NO.916/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, IT COURT, BYADAGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,96,500/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA No.23434 OF 2012

BETWEEN

1 . THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HOSPETH, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, U M RAIKAR, NEW INDIA ASSUARNCE CO. LTD., MTP HUBBALLI, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, NCM HUBBALLI. ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)

AND 1 . KENCHAPPA S/O SHANKRAMMA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NOT MENTIONED R/O: P K HALLI, TQ: HOSPETH, DIST: BELLARY, NOW AT 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

2 . KUMAR GADHILINGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGE: 15 YEARS,

- 5 - MINOR REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1, R/O: 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

3 . S DAWOOD S/O REDDY BABANGOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TT UNIT R/O: PAPINAYAKANAHALLI, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD, DATED 31.05.2012 PASSED IN WCA NO.8/2011 BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,54,708/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

IN MFA No.102649 OF 2015 BETWEEN

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BALLARI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...APPELLANT (BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . SRI. GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA S/O LATE ULLURU MALLAPPA @ YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT: 39 YEARS,

- 6 - OCC: LABOUR, R/O: NEW YERRAGUDI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

2 . SMT. BHAYAMMA W/O GADHILINGAPPA @ GADHILINGA AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: NEW YARRAGUDI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

3 . SRI. K GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

4 . SRI. HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR FOR R1-R4)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.559/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT – III AT BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,55,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

- 7 - IN MFA No.102650 OF 2015

BETWEEN

1 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BALLARI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SRI. SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATES FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI. ULTEPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KORACHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

2 . SRI. K GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

3 . SRI. HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENTS (By SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR FOR R1-R3)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.560/2014 ON THE

- 8 - FILE OF THE MACT – III AT BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,30,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. . IN MFA No.102651 OF 2015 BETWEEN

1 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BALLARI REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, SRI. SHASHANK S HEGDE, ADVOCATES FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI.K MALLIKARJUNA S/O K SHANMUKAPPA AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KARACHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

2 . SRI.K GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI

3 . HANUMESH, S/O NENIKAPPA AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O: KARCHEDU VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI …RESPONDENTS (By SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3)

- 9 -

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.561/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT – III AT BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,30,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA No.296 OF 2016 BETWEEN

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.2241/4, GIRIYAMMA SHAMBHUGOWDA COMPLEX CHURCH ROAD CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571501 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SANMATHI E I, ADVOCATE)

AND 1 . SRI.KEMPEGOWDA S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/A S M DODDI VILLAGE AKKUR POST VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571501

2 . SRI NAGEGOWDA S/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A DODDAVITALENAHALLI VILLAGE VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI

- 10 - CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

3 . SMT MANJULA W/O NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS R/A DODDAVITALENAHALLI VILLAGE VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

4 . SRI AJAY V N S/O NAGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R/A DODDAVITALENAHALLI VILLAGE VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED, By SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - R4)

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.10.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.229/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., ADDITIONAL MACT, CHANNAPATTANA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.7,79,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA.CROB No.100002 OF 2016 IN MFA NO.102650/2015 BETWEEN

SRI.ULTEPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC:COOLIE

- 11 - R/O:KORACHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY ... CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)

AND 1 . K. GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

2 . HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

3 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER BELLARY …RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 DISPENSED WITH VCO DT.13.12.2017, BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.102650/2015 FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.560/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT – III, BALLARI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

- 12 -

IN MFA.CROB No.100003 OF 2016 IN MFA NO.102651/2015 BETWEEN

SRI.MALLIKARJUNA S/O K SHANMUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC:COOLIE, R/O:KORACHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

...CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SMT. SUNITHA P KALASOOR)

AND 1 . K. GULEPPA S/O K LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC:DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

2 . HANUMESH S/O NENIKAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC:OWNER OF THE TRACTOR BEARING NO.KA-34/T-4232, R/O KARCHEDU VILLAGE TQ:DIST:BELLARY

3 . UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER BELLARY …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VCO DT.13.12.2017, BY SMT : PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

- 13 -

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.102651/2015 FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MV ACT, 1988 TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2015, PASSED IN MVC NO.561/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT – III, BALLARI PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN MFA.CROB No.100128 OF 2016 IN MFA NO.23434/2012 BETWEEN

1 . SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O SHANKRAMMA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O: P.K. HALLI, TALUK: HOSAPETE & DIST: BALLARI. NOW AT 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL-58322.

2 . GADHILINGAMMA D/O KENCHAPPA, AGE: 19 YEARS, R/O: P.K. HALLI, TALUK: HOSAPETE & DIST: BALLARI. NOW AT 5TH WARD, MINIRABAD, TAL & DIST: KOPPAL-58322. ... CROSS OBJECTORS

(BY SRI. M AMAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND 1 . SHRI.S. DAWOOD S/O REDDY BABANGOUDA, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER TT UNIT, R/O: PAPINAYAKANAHALLI,

- 14 - TALUK: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI-583101.

2 . THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., HOSAPETE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST MANAGER,U.M. RAIKAR, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MTP HUBBALLI DIVISIONAL OFFICE SRINATH COMPLEX NCM HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS

(R1 SERVED, BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.23434/2012 IS FILED UNDER ORDER LXXXI RULE 22 OF CPCP AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2012 PASSED IN WCA 8/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE MFA CROSS OBJECTIONS AND MFAs ARE REFERRED TO THE FULL BENCH FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING REFERENCES MADE BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: (i) Whether a person travelling on a mud-guard of a tractor can be construed as an authorized passenger or an unauthorized passenger and liability of such person is covered or not? (ii) Whether the persons who are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor can be construed as employees so as to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of MV Act though there is only one seating capacity in the tractor apart from the driver? (iii) Whether the crushing machine or ploughing machine or any other instrument attached to the tractor can be considered to

- 15 - be an attachment to the tractor so as to cover the risk of the insured in respect of employees and the policy taken in respect of the tractor alone? (iv) What is the effect of Section 147 of MV Act to cover the statutory risk under the said situation? THESE MFA CROSS OBJECTIONS AND MFAs HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER , THIS DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

A learned Single Judge of this Court, by the Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2018 disposed of MFA Crob Nos. 100001/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102649/2015, MFA Crob Nos. 100003/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102651/2015, MFA Crob Nos. 100002/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102650/2015, MFA No.102649, MFA No.102650/2015 and MFA No.102651/2015. While disposing of the said MFA cross objections and appeals, the learned Single Judge was of the view that since there are conflicting decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the following questions are required to be referred to a larger Bench of this Court:

I) Whether a person travelling on a mud-guard of a tractor can be construed as an authorized passenger or an unauthorized passenger and liability of such person is covered or not?

- 16 -

II) Whether the persons who are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor can be construed as employees so as to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of MV Act though there is only one seating capacity in the tractor apart from the driver?

III) Whether the crushing machine or ploughing machine or any other instrument attached to the tractor can be considered to be an attachment to the tractor so as to cover the risk of the insured in respect of employees and the policy taken in respect of the tractor alone?

IV) What is the effect of Section 147 of MV Act to cover the statutory risk under the said situation?

- 17 - before the larger Bench for deciding the same issues. As, the similar issues were involved in MFA No.23434/2012, MFA. No. 296/2016 and MFA Crob No.100128/2016 in MFA No.23434/2012, they were clubbed with this batch of appeals. By a special order dated 23rd November, 2020, the present Full Bench is constituted to decide the above issues. SUBMISSIONS:

- 18 - which revolve around the requirement of statutory insurance under Section 147 of Chapter XI of the M.V. Act. We may also note here that we are considering the provisions of the M.V. Act as amended by the Act No.54 of 1994. We are not called upon to consider the provisions of the M.V. Act as amended by the Act No. 32 of 2019.

- 19 - insurance. He submitted that the deceased and the injured persons were coolies engaged in agricultural operations in the agricultural field of the insured. He pointed out that the deceased who was sitting on the mud-guard of the tractor was neither a traveller nor a passenger. He submitted that in the case of M/S Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd., -vs- State of Karnataka and others2 the Apex Court held that though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a “goods carriage” under Section 2(14) and consequently, a “transport vehicle” as defined under Section 2(47). He relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Noorulla – vs- P.K. Prabhakar and another3. He also relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhimavva and others -vs- Shankar alias Adya and others4 and submitted that the questions No (i) and (ii), as framed by the learned Single Judge are covered by the decision in the case of Bhimavva (supra) and, therefore, he submitted that the reference be answered by reframing the questions in terms of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Bhimavva (supra). The

1 AIR 2020 SC 3601 2 AIR 2005 SC 3428 3 1999-II LLJ 37 4 AIR 2004 Karnataka 58

- 20 - learned senior counsel urged that a tractor is a carriage and, therefore, the reference will have to be answered in the affirmative by holding that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured, even in respect of the liability of a person sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor or a tractor-trailer. He relied upon the decision of the Punjab High Court (Delhi Bench) in the case of Itbar Singh -vs- P.S. Gill and other5. He relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd –vs- Kokilaben Chandravadan and others6, (ii) National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Swaran Singh and others7, (iii) Guru Govekar –vs- Miss. Filomena F. Lobo and others8, and (iv) National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Balakrishnan and another9. He placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited -vs- Sri. Maruthi and others10. Lastly, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Halappa –vs- Malik Sab11. He submitted that on facts, the said decision holds

5 AIR 1955 Punjab (Delhi Bench)187 6 AIR 1987 SC 1184 7 2004 ACJ 1 8 AIR 1988 SC 1332 9 AIR 2013 SC 473 10 ILR 2011 KAR 4139 11 Civil Appeal Nos.022911-912 of 2017 Dt.15.12.2017

- 21 - that the insurer is liable to cover the risk of the person who is sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor.

- 22 - 8. The learned counsel representing the insurer relied upon the various decisions of the Apex Court which are as under: i) Dhanraj -vs- New India Assurance Co Ltd and another12 ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd., -vs- Asha Rani and others13 iii) Shivaraj –vs- Rajendra and another14 iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd –vs- V. Chinnamma and others15

Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel on the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 (for short, “the Road Regulations”) framed by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 118 of the M.V Act. He relied upon Regulation 28 thereof which lays down that a driver, when driving a tractor shall not carry or allow any person to be carried on the tractor.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS - QUESTION No (i)

12 (2004) 8 SCC 553 13 (2003) 2 SCC 223 14 (2018) 10 SCC 432 15 (2004) 8 SCC 697

- 23 - tractor. The issue is whether such a person can be construed as an authorized passenger and whether the liability of such person is required to be statutorily covered by a policy of insurance issued in accordance with Section 147 of the M.V Act. The second question revolves around a fact situation where ploughing or crushing machines are attached to the tractor. The question is whether persons who are working on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to a tractor can be construed as employees whose risk is required to be covered under Section 147 of the M.V Act. The third question is on the issue whether the liability of the employees working on ploughing machine or crushing machine attached to a tractor is required to be covered by the policy of insurance, though the insurance policy is taken only in respect of the tractor. The answer to the question (iv) depends upon the answers to the question Nos (i) to (iii).

- 24 - made by the Act No. 32 of 2019. Chapter XI of the M.V. Act deals with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Sub-Section (1) of Section 146 of the M.V Act lays down that no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Thus, by virtue of the above statutory provision, obtaining insurance against third party risk is made mandatory for the use of any motor vehicle in a public place. The requirement of having such a policy as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, for use of any motor vehicle in a public place, is mandatory.

(2) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act which are material for our purpose read thus: “146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.—(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force, in relation to the use of the vehicle by that

- 25 - person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991). Explanation.— A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force. 147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability.—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub- section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or

- 26 - damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required – (i) To cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee – (a) Engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) If it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) If it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have

- 27 - arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place.”

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 specifies the person or classes of persons who are required to be insured to the extent specified in sub-section (2) of Section 147. In view of clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, a policy of insurance must cover (i) the liability incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, (ii) the liability which may be incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle and (iii) the liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public

- 28 - service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.

- 29 - respect of the death of an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment of the insured or liability in respect of bodily injuries sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment. However, the exception is that the liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to the employees mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to Section 147 of the M.V Act, arising under the W.C Act is required to be covered by a statutory policy. Thus, in other words, a policy of insurance is not required to cover the liability arising of death of an employee or bodily injury to an employee unless it is a liability under the W.C. Act in respect of the employees mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147.

- 30 - section (1) of Section 147 clearly lays down that the policy must cover the liability of death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. Obviously, it refers to liability in respect of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative when they are carried in a goods carriage, as defined in sub- section (14) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act. Thus, in a goods carriage, if the owner of the goods or his authorized representative is carried, any liability which incurred in respect of the death of or bodily injury to such persons is required to be covered by a policy of insurance. In view of clause (i) (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the liability arising out of the death of or bodily injury to authorized employees of the owner of the goods carried in goods carriage is required to be covered. In view of sub-clause (b) of clause (i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147, the liability arising out of the injury to conductor or ticket examiner in a public transport vehicle is required to be covered. As provided in sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147, even the liability of death of, or bodily injury to a driver of the insured is required to be covered by a policy of insurance.

- 31 -

- 32 - use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. A ‘tractor’ is defined in sub-section (44) of Section-2 of the M.V. Act which reads thus:

“(44) ‘tractor’ means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); excludes a road-roller”.

From the above definition, it is clear that a ‘tractor’ is a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load other than the equipment used for the purpose of propulsion. A ‘trailer’ is defined under sub-section (46) of Section-2 of the M.V. Act which reads thus:

“(46) ‘trailer’ means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.”

Hence, the condition precedent for applicability of the definition of ‘trailer’ is that it must be a vehicle which is drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. The definition of ‘trailer’ specifically excludes a semi-trailer. Sub-section (39) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act defines ‘semi-trailer’ which reads thus:

- 33 -

“(39) ‘semi-trailer’ means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is super- imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle.”

Thus, a semi trailer is a vehicle which is not mechanically propelled. In view of the definition of “motor vehicle” defined under sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act, the vehicle must be mechanically propelled adapted for use upon roads. Therefore, a semi-trailor by itself will not be covered by the definition of motor vehicle. Moreover, a trailer as defined in sub-section (46) of Section 2 is not a semi-trailer.

“(14) ‘goods carriage’ means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.”

Considering the aforesaid definitions, it is very clear that unless a motor vehicle is constructed or adapted for use solely for the

- 34 - carriage of goods, it will not become a goods carriage. A vehicle which is not so adapted or constructed when used for carriage of goods also becomes a goods carriage.

“(23) ‘medium goods vehicle’ means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.”

(16) ‘heavy goods vehicle’ means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.”

On plain reading of the above definitions, a vehicle cannot be termed as a medium goods vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle unless it is a goods carriage within the meaning of sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act. Sub-section (35) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act defines ‘public service vehicle’ which reads thus:

“(35) ‘public service vehicle’ means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a

- 35 - maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage.”

Thus, a public service vehicle cannot be termed as a goods carriage. A goods carriage cannot become a public service vehicle. Sub-section (33) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act defines ‘private service vehicle’ which reads thus:

“(33) ‘private service vehicle’ means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes.”

Hence, a goods carriage cannot become a private service vehicle. A private service vehicle cannot be termed as a goods carriage. The definition of ‘transport vehicle’, as provided under sub-section (47) of Section 2 of the M.V. Act means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.

- 36 - 20. On plain reading of the definition of sub-section (14) of Section-2 of the M.V. Act, a tractor is not included in the definition of goods carriage, as by its very nature, it is not constructed or adapted to carry any load other than the equipments used for the purpose of propulsion.

(14) of the M.V. Act. The observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 15 and 16 are relevant which read thus: “15. Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The expression “goods carriage” has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean “any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods”

- 37 - whereas “tractor” has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean “a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a roadroller”. “Trailer” has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean “any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle”. 16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being

- 38 - used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of “goods carriage” as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24-11- 1991 i.e. much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment. (Underline supplied)

“28. Driving of tractors and goods vehicles - A driver when driving a tractor shall not carry or allow any person to be carried on the

- 39 - tractor. A driver of goods carriage shall not carry in the driver’s cabin more number of persons than that is mentioned in the Registration Certificate and shall not carry passengers for hire or reward.” (Underline supplied) Hence, by virtue of the above Regulation, a driver of a tractor is not permitted to carry or allow any person to be carried on a tractor including on its mud-guard. On this aspect, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shivaraj (supra) is very relevant. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said decision, the Apex Court held thus:

“10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court,

- 40 - in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.

- 41 - the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver. It was categorically held that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor for the liability of a passenger travelling on the tractor. Hence, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred above, the liability of a person sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor is not required to be covered by statutory insurance policy, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act.

- 42 - mud-guard of the tractor involved in the accident. Therefore, this decision will not help the appellants.

- 43 - liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act essential for enforcement of the liability is not supported by either the provisions of the Act or any rule of interpretation. With the above observations, We concur with the view taken by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as already indicated earlier”.

16 2008 ACJ 1388 (SC) = (2008) 7 SCC 416

- 44 - purposes for which it was insured and, therefore, it was held that though the insurer is liable to pay the compensation, the insurer was entitled to recover the same from the insured. In the said case, the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the insured and therefore, the insurer had approached the Apex Court. From paragraph 13 onwards, the Apex Court has considered its various decisions including the decision rendered in the case of Asha Rani (supra). The perusal of the findings recorded in paragraph 13 to 19 of the said decision shows that the Apex Court was of the considered view that the liability of such a passenger was not required to be covered by a policy of insurance. However, the Apex Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, considering the fact that the deceased was a labourer. With a view to do complete justice to the victim, the Apex Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award and directed that the insurer need not file a separate execution petition against the owner and it can directly recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

- 45 - 28. Now coming to the case of Asha Rani (supra) wherein the Bench consisting three Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court, in paragraphs 9 and 27 held thus:

“9. In Satpal case [New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] the Court assumed that the provisions of Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are identical with Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as it stood prior to its amendment. But a careful scrutiny of the provisions would make it clear that prior to the amendment of 1994 it was not necessary for the insurer to insure against the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried in a goods vehicle. On an erroneous impression this Court came to the conclusion that the insurer would be liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or bodily injury caused to either the owner of the goods or his authorized representative when being carried in a goods vehicle the accident occurred. If the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1994 is examined, particularly Section 46, by which the expression “injury to any person” in the original Act stood substituted by the expression “injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle”, the conclusion is irresistible that prior to the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1994,

- 46 - even if the widest interpretation is given to the expression “to any person” it will not cover either the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried in the vehicle. The objects and reasons of clause 46 also state that it seeks to amend Section 147 to include owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle for the purposes of liability under the insurance policy. It is no doubt true that sometimes the legislature amends the law by way of amplification and clarification of an inherent position which is there in the statute, but a plain meaning being given to the words used in the statute, as it stood prior to its amendment of 1994, and as it stands subsequent to its amendment in 1994 and bearing in mind the objects and reasons engrafted in the amended provisions referred to earlier, it is difficult for us to construe that the expression “including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle” which was added to the pre-existing expression “injury to any person” is either clarificatory or amplification of the pre-existing statute. On the other hand it clearly demonstrates that the legislature wanted to bring within the sweep of Section 147 and making it compulsory for the insurer to insure even in case of a goods vehicle, the owner of the goods or his authorized representative being carried in a goods vehicle

- 47 - when that vehicle met with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative either dies or suffers bodily injury. The judgment of this Court in Satpal case [New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] therefore must be held to have not been correctly decided and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court accordingly are set aside and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the insurer will not be liable for paying compensation to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of the goods or his representative dies or suffers any bodily injury.

- 48 -

Thus, liability of the owner of the goods or his authorized representative is required to be covered by a policy only in respect of a goods carriage.

- 49 - by the owners for registration shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government may notify in the Official Gazette. Under the definition of transport vehicle under sub-section (47) of Section 2 of M.V.Act, a tractor is not included. As held by the Apex Court, a tractor by itself is not a goods carriage and therefore, merely on the basis of a notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section 41, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the tractor by itself is a goods carriage as defined in M.V. Act. In a given case, if it is attached to a trailer, the combination may become a goods carriage. Sub section (4) of Section 41 provides for classification only for the purposes of Registration of vehicles. A goods carriage is specifically defined in the M.V. Act which will not include a tractor.

17 AIR 1969 SC 1068

- 50 - cannot be imported for interpretation of Section 147 of M.V. Act.

18 2012 (3)KCCR 1772 (FB) 19 1987 ACJ 386

- 51 - the statutory insurance as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act. QUESTION Nos (ii) AND (iii):

- 52 - Act. Since a semi-trailer is not a motor vehicle, the provisions of Section 147 of the M.V. Act will not apply to it. Chapter-XI deals with the insurance of motor vehicles and, therefore, even the provision of Section 147 of the M.V. Act deals with insurance of motor vehicles. Even assuming that it is an attachment to the tractor, it is not required to be covered by a statutory policy of insurance as such attachments are not motor vehicles. In view of sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (i) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, the liability of employees working on such instruments like ploughing or crushing machine attached to a tractor is not required to be covered by a policy of insurance in respect of a tractor issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act.

i) Question No (i) is answered in terms of paragraph Nos 23 and 33. Question Nos (ii) and (iii) are answered in the negative;

- 53 - ii) Question No (iv) need not be answered separately, in view of our answers to question Nos (i) to (iii), it stands answered; iii) All the pending appeals and cross objections arising out of this group of appeals shall be placed before the concerned Benches having roster for consideration and disposal.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE