The Karnataka High Court has ruled that hens fall within the category of “livestock” under the Motor Vehicles Act, paving the way for insurance claims when poultry carried in a vehicle is lost in a road accident.
Justice Geetha KB delivered the ruling while deciding an insurance company’s challenge to a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award granting compensation to a poultry farm owner whose broiler hens died after a transport vehicle overturned.
The case arose from an accident involving an Eicher van carrying 2,250 broiler hens. According to the poultry owner, around 2,000 birds died when the vehicle met with the accident, while the remaining 250 were allegedly taken away by people from the surrounding area.
The owner had sought ₹5.90 lakh in compensation. The MACT subsequently awarded ₹4.51 lakh with interest.
The insurer challenged the award, arguing that hens could not be classified as livestock for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also relied on Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, contending that the requirements governing the transportation of cattle had not been complied with.
The High Court, however, drew a distinction between the definition of “cattle” under the State Rules and the broader statutory meaning of “goods” under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act specifically includes livestock within the definition of goods. The Court therefore concluded that hens transported in the vehicle came within the statutory category of livestock.
“Livestock means and includes hens. Hence, the hen is considered as livestock,” the Court observed.
The Court also examined the terms of the insurance policy, particularly the provision covering damage to property other than property belonging to, held in trust by, or under the custody or control of the insured, subject to the applicable liability limit.
On that basis, the Court found no grounds to overturn the ₹4.51 lakh compensation awarded by the tribunal.
The poultry owner’s request for an enhancement of compensation was rejected. The insurer’s appeal was allowed only to the limited extent of reducing the interest rate from 7% to 6% per annum.
The insurer has been directed to deposit the compensation, along with the applicable interest, before the MACT within eight weeks.
The ruling came in K Veera Narayana Swamy v. Y Yankappa.
