Hens Are Considered Livestock Under MV Act; Claimant Transporting Hens Entitled For Actual Damages Suffered In Motor Accident: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
While observing that hens are considered livestock which come under the definition of goods under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Karnataka High Court has held that the claimant transporting hens in a goods vehicle from one place to another would be entitled to actual damages suffered in the motor accident.
The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) by the claimant challenging the compensation amount awarded. Another appeal was filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Single Bench of Justice Geetha K.B. held, “Livestock means and includes hens. Hence, the hen is considered as livestock.”
“Admittedly, claimant is not the owner of the lorry and he was only transporting his livestock in the goods vehicle from one place to another and thus damage to his property is covered under the insurance policy. Hence, this Court holds that the claimant is entitled for actual damages he suffered in the accident.”
Advocate Y.Lakshmikant Reddy represented the Appellant while Advocate Prashant S. Kadadevar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs 5,90,000 in respect of the accidental death of 2,250 Broiler hens which were being transported in a van. It was alleged that the vehicle met with an accident and 2,000 hens were dead while 250 hens were being taken away by the neighbors of said place. The insurer had filed a written statement, wherein he denied the averments made in the petition and further took the contention that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the motor vehicle. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a total compensation of Rs 4,51,000 with interest. This judgment and award were under challenge in the two appeals by the claimant and the insurer.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that as per Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, while transporting cattle in a goods vehicle in a public place, some conditions are to be fulfilled and the carriage should contain some basic arrangements for transportation of cattle. “In Explanation to this Rule, ‘cattle’ means Goat, Sheep, Buffalo, Bull, Ox, Cow, Deer, Horse, Pony, Mule, Ass, Pig or the young ones thereof. This definition does not include hen”, it added.
The Bench also clarified that Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines ‘goods’, which includes livestock. “Learned counsel for insurer would vehemently submit that hen cannot be called as livestock. However, said argument cannot be accepted because livestock means the animals which are having life. Livestock means and includes hens. Hence, the hen is considered as livestock. Hence, this Court holds that it is established that the claimant was transporting his hens in the offending vehicle from Challakere to Tadapathri”, it mentioned.
Referring to the Policy, the Bench stated that in the policy under the head ‘limits of liability’, it is held that the policy is including death of or bodily injury to any person so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act and policy i.e. damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust or in custody of control of the insured up to the limits of Rs 7.5 lakhs.
Thus, dismissing the appeal of the claimant and partly allowing the insurer’s appeal, the Bench reduced the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 7% to 6%.
Cause Title: K. Veera Narayana Swamy v. Y. Yankappa (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:10894)