Hens are 'livestock' under MV Act; owner can claim insurance for loss of hens in road accident: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently held that hens constitute 'livestock' under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, their loss in a road accident can be treated as damage to goods covered by a motor insurance policy [K Veera Narayana Swamy vs Y Yankappa].

Justice Geetha KB rejected Reliance General Insurance Company's argument that hens cannot be considered livestock.

It was dealing with the insurer's challenge against the grant of compensation of ₹4.51 lakh by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to a poultry farm owner after his 2,000 broiler hens died in the road accident.

"Livestock means and includes hens. Hence, the hen is considered as livestock" the Court said.

It relied upon Section 2(13) of Motor Vehicles Act which states that ‘goods’ include livestock.

The poultry farm owner had earlier claimed compensation of ₹5.90 lakh in connection with the death of 2,250 broiler hens that were being transported in an Eicher van.

The claimant said the vehicle overturned, resulting in the death of around 2,000 hens, while the remaining 250 were allegedly taken away by people from the neighbouring area.

The tribunal awarded ₹4.51 lakh with 7% annual interest.

Before the High Court, the insurer contended that the claimant had failed to establish compliance with Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 concerning transportation of cattle.

It was also argued that hens could not be treated as livestock and that the insurance policy did not cover the goods in question.

However, the High Court rejected the insurer's reliance on Rule 74.

While the Court acknowledged that explanation to Rule 74 defines “cattle” to include goat, sheep, buffalo, bull, ox, cow, deer, horse, pony, mule, ass, pig and their young ones but not hens, it referred to Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which defines “goods” and includes livestock within its ambit.

"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 ₹7.5 lakhs," it noted.

Therefore, the Court held that the claimant was transporting livestock in the offending vehicle and found no reason to interfere with the tribunal's award of ₹4.51 lakh.

Howeer, the High Court dismissed the poultry owners' appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The insurer's appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum.

The insurer was directed to deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest before the MACT within eight weeks.

Advocate GN Raichur appeared for Reliance General Insurance Company.

Counsel Y Lakshmikant Reddy appeared for the claimant,

[Read Judgment]