United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Chenchu Aruna 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3774 Tel

          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