HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A.No.26 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the fastened liability, the insurer / 2nd respondent preferred this Appeal challenging the decree and award dt.29.10.2014 passed in MVOP.No.503 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge, at Warangal.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents / claim petitioners filed the petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of their child Ranjith / deceased (aged 7 years) in a motor accident dt.19.03.2000.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.03.2000, at about 12:00 noon, the Ranjit / deceased and one Satish boarded the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration Nos.AP-36-F-9897 and AP-36-C-9849, respectively at the house of one P. Komurelli to go to the house of E. Srinivas. On their way, the 1st respondent drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner at high speed thereby Ranjit / deceased fell down on the road, and the left wheel of the Trailer ran over his head and resulted in instantaneous death. Thus, the petition is filed for compensation.
NTR,J
::2:: macma_26_2015
4. The Tribunal, after due enquiry, granted Rs.1,50,000/- with 7.00% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, and the insurer / 1st and 2nd respondents were jointly and severally held liable.
5. The appellant / 2nd respondent / insurer contested that the driver of the tractor and trailer is only permitted for agricultural operations. The Ranjit / deceased was neither a driver nor an authorized passenger. Hence, the insurer shall not be held liable to indemnify the insured. That apart, the Tribunal should have considered that the driver-cum-owner / 1st respondent paid a sum of Rs.27,000/- to the petitioners as compensation, and this fact is not disputed, as such, they cannot again claim compensation.
6. The respondents / petitioners pleaded that the award passed was in proper terms as the insurer's policy is in force. Therefore, the appellant / insurer was rightly held liable and as they are statutorily entitled for compensation as such, there is no valid reason to interfere with the award.
7. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the point arises for determination is "whether the insurer made out any tenable ground to absolve its liability of indemnifying the 1st respondent?".
8. The oral and documentary evidence of 1st petitioner as PW.1 and the eye-witness as PW.2, are consistent as to the manner of accident that while Ranjit / deceased was present in the Trailer, and the driver of the NTR,J ::3:: macma_26_2015 Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and Ranjit / deceased fell down and the rear wheel of the Trailer ran over his head and caused instantaneous death.
9. The age of the deceased and the statement that he boarded the tractor to go to one's house is indicating that Ranjit / deceased was on board of the Trailer not as a Coolie or in any employment pertaining to the Tractor and Trailer. The Insurance Policy of the Tractor and Trailer / Ex.B.3 is disclosing the policy coverage as 'Miscellaneous Vehicle 'B' Policy for agricultural purposes', and the policy schedule is not covering the risk of labourer or passenger. Further, as the Tractor and Trailer were insured for agricultural purposes only, thus any person who is on board of the Tractor or Trailer except the driver, shall be construed as 'unauthorized passenger' and he cannot be considered as third-party.
10. As Tractor and Trailer is not a passenger vehicle, the provisions under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot enjoin statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to cover the risk of passengers. In this event, there would be no situation in the insurance contract covering the risk of passengers. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd respondents / insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the 1st respondent / insurer in paying compensation. As the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor in causing death is concluded, being the driver and owner of the Tractor, the 1st respondent shall only be held liable to pay compensation NTR,J ::4:: macma_26_2015 to petitioners. Therefore, the claim of the appellant / insurer is found legally sustainable.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The insurer / 2nd respondent is absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner / driver / 1st respondent. Consequently, the owner - cum - driver / 1st respondent shall pay the compensation to petitioners as awarded by the Tribunal. The amounts deposited by the appellant / insurer shall be refunded to it, and if the amounts were already disbursed to the claimants / respondents, the insurer is at liberty to recover these amounts from the driver-cum- owner / 1st respondent. No costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 25.11.2021 Ndr NTR,J ::5:: macma_26_2015