The Karnataka High Court has held that hens fall within the meaning of “livestock” under the Motor Vehicles Act, and that the loss suffered by a poultry farm owner whose hens died in a road accident was covered by the insurance policy.
Justice Geetha K.B. delivered the judgment on July 29, 2026, while deciding two connected appeals arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in Ballari.
Background of the Case
K. Veera Narayana Swamy, proprietor of Balaji Poultry Farm, had purchased 2,250 broiler hens and was transporting them in an Eicher van from Challakere to Tadapathri on June 19, 2013.
The vehicle met with an accident near Ayyagaralapalli village at around 4 a.m. According to the claim, around 2,000 hens died, while the remaining 250 were taken away by people from the nearby area. The claimant sought ₹5.90 lakh as compensation.
The MACT had awarded ₹4.51 lakh with 7% annual interest. Both the claimant and the insurer challenged the award before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The insurer argued that the claimant had not shown compliance with Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and that hens could not be treated as livestock.
The High Court rejected this argument. Referring to Section 2(13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which includes livestock within the definition of “goods”, the Court observed that livestock means animals having life and “includes hens.”
The Court also noted that the claimant had produced the purchase invoice, bank statement and poultry-farm licence. These documents supported his claim that he owned the 2,250 hens being transported in the vehicle.
Justice Geetha K.B. further held that the insurance policy covered damage to property other than property belonging to the insured, up to ₹7.5 lakh. Since the claimant was not the owner of the vehicle but was transporting his livestock in it, the loss was covered.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and partly allowed the insurer’s appeal.
The compensation of ₹4.51 lakh was maintained, but the interest rate was reduced from 7% to 6% per annum. The remaining portion of the Tribunal’s award was left unchanged, and the insurer was directed to deposit the compensation with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: K. Veera Narayana Swamy v. Y. Yankappa & Connected Appeal
Case Number: MFA No. 101351 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 102208 of 2016
Judge: Justice Geetha K.B.
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
