Karnataka High Court Holds Broiler Hens Are Livestock and Goods Under Motor Vehicles Act; Upholds ₹4.51 Lakh Compensation for Poultry Accident Loss
Karnataka High Court Rejects Veterinary Report Objection in Poultry Accident Claim; Charge-Sheet and Purchase Records Sufficiently Proved Death and Loss
Facts
The Karnataka High Court at Dharwad decided two connected appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in MVC No. 812/2013. The claimant, K. Veera Narayana Swamy, sought enhancement of compensation, while Reliance General Insurance Company challenged the award itself.
The claimant was the proprietor of Balaji Poultry Farm. He had purchased 2,250 broiler hens and was transporting them in an Eicher van on 19 June 2013. The vehicle met with an accident near Ayyagaralapalli Village.
According to the claimant, around 2,000 hens died in the accident, while the remaining 250 were allegedly taken away by neighbouring persons after the vehicle overturned.
The Tribunal awarded ₹4,51,000 with interest at 7% per annum.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether broiler hens can be treated as “goods” within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether hens qualify as “livestock” under Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Whether Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, governing transportation of cattle, applied to hens.
- Whether the insurance policy covered the loss of poultry being transported.
- Whether the quantum of compensation required enhancement or reduction.
- Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal was appropriate.
Claimant’s Arguments
The claimant contended that he had produced sufficient documentary evidence showing purchase and transportation of 2,250 broiler hens.
He argued that the accident caused the death of 2,000 hens and the remaining 250 birds were taken away by nearby persons.
He further submitted that the Tribunal had failed to grant compensation for transportation expenses, business loss and mental agony, and therefore sought enhancement of the award.
Insurer’s Arguments
Reliance General Insurance argued that the claimant had failed to show compliance with Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules.
The insurer also contended that hens could not be treated as “livestock,” that the policy did not cover the goods involved, and that the compensation awarded was excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence.
Analysis of the Law
Hens Are Not “Cattle” Under Rule 74
The Court examined Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
The Explanation to Rule 74 defines “cattle” to include goats, sheep, buffaloes, bulls, oxen, cows, deer, horses, ponies, mules, asses, pigs and their young ones.
The Court expressly noted that hens are not included in this definition.
Therefore, the insurer’s contention based on non-compliance with Rule 74 could not succeed.
Hens Are “Livestock”
The Court then considered Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines “goods” to include livestock.
Rejecting the insurer’s contention, the Court held that livestock means animals having life and includes hens.
Accordingly, broiler hens transported in the vehicle were treated as livestock and therefore as “goods” for purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ownership and Loss Were Proved
The claimant produced an invoice from Suguna Foods Ltd. showing:
- Balaji Poultry Farm as the purchaser;
- 180 cages; and
- 2,250 birds.
He also produced a bank statement showing payment of ₹4,50,584.40 towards purchase of the broiler hens.
The Court also relied on the claimant’s poultry-farm licence and held that the documentary material clearly established ownership and transportation of the birds.
Veterinary Report Not Essential
The insurer argued that there was no veterinary doctor’s report confirming the death of the hens.
The High Court rejected this submission.
The charge-sheet specifically recorded that the broiler hens died in the accident, and the claimant had also testified regarding their death.
The Court held that this material was sufficient and absence of a veterinary report was not fatal to the claim.
Insurance Policy Covered the Loss
The policy covered damage to property other than property belonging to or held in trust or custody of the insured, up to ₹7.5 lakh.
The claimant was not the owner of the insured lorry. He was merely transporting his livestock in it.
Therefore, the Court held that the loss of his broiler hens constituted damage to third-party property covered by the policy.
Compensation of ₹4.51 Lakh Upheld
The claimant had claimed approximately ₹4.50 lakh as the cost of the birds.
The Tribunal awarded ₹4,51,000 after considering the purchase bill and other relevant circumstances.
The High Court found the amount just and reasonable and declined to interfere with the quantum.
Accordingly, the claimant’s appeal for enhancement failed.
Interest Reduced From 7% to 6%
The only modification made by the High Court concerned interest.
The Tribunal had awarded interest at 7% per annum.
The High Court reduced the rate to 6% per annum, while leaving the substantive compensation award unchanged.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court’s reasoning proceeded on three key findings.
First, hens do not fall within the specific definition of “cattle” under Rule 74, so compliance with that provision could not be insisted upon.
Second, hens nevertheless fall within the broader concept of livestock, which is included in “goods” under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Third, the claimant had satisfactorily proved ownership, transportation and loss through the invoice, bank statement, poultry-farm licence, police papers and charge-sheet.
Once those facts were established, the loss constituted covered property damage under the policy.
Conclusion
The claimant’s appeal, MFA No. 101351/2016, was dismissed.
The insurer’s appeal, MFA No. 102208/2016, was allowed only in part.
The Tribunal’s award of ₹4,51,000 was maintained, but the interest rate was reduced from 7% to 6% per annum.
The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks.
Case Details
Case: K. Veera Narayana Swamy v. Y. Yankappa & Ors. connected with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Veera Narayana Swamy & Ors.
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad
Case Numbers: MFA No. 101351 of 2016 c/w MFA No. 102208 of 2016
Judge: Justice Geetha K.B.
Date: 29 July 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:10894
Result: ₹4.51 lakh compensation upheld; hens held to be livestock/goods under the Motor Vehicles Act; insurer’s appeal partly allowed only to reduce interest from 7% to 6%.
