The United India Insurance ... vs Kengenla Laxaman And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6367 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.2127 of 2019

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company

aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.01.2019 in

M.V.O.P.No.491 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. According to the petitioner, on 7.8.2016 at about 7-45 p.m. at

Donkal village shivar, while the deceased Kengenla Sandeep was

travelling on Tractor bearing No. TS 16 ED 4220 attached to its

trolley No. TS 16 ED 4207 as a labour to attend the work at the

agriculture fields of respondent No.1, in the meanwhile, the driver of

tractor drove it in rash and negligent manner and could not control it

and hit the road side tree, due to which the tractor turned turtle and the

deceased came under the tractor and sustained fractures and injuries

all over the body and died on the spot. According to the petitioners,

the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a labour under

respondent No.1. Thus, the petitioners are claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and

insurer of the tractor and trolley.

GSD, J MACMA.No.2127 of 2019

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income

of the deceased. It is further contended that the owner of the tractor

and trolley has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No. TS 16 ED 4220 attached to its trolley bearing No. TS 16 ED 4207 by its driver causing death of Kengenla Sandeep?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

5. In order to prove their case, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RWs.1

and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.X1 were marked.

6. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total

compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- along with proportionate costs and

GSD, J MACMA.No.2127 of 2019

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization with a direction to the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company to deposit the compensation within one month from the date

of award and recover the same from the respondent No.1. Aggrieved

thereby, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal.

7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company and the learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos.1

and 2 herein. Perused the material available on record.

8. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Insurance

Company argued that the deceased was travelled on the tractor as

unauthorized passenger and the Tribunal erred in directing the

Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same

from respondent No.2. Accordingly, prayed to set aside the impugned

order in the O.P.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant submitted

that the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation

against the respondent No.2 and the same needs no interference by

this Court.

GSD, J MACMA.No.2127 of 2019

10. With regard to the manner of accident, after evaluating the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor

and trolley.

11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the petitioners

contended that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by

working as labour under respondent No.1. However, as there is no

evidence produced by the petitioners to show the income of the

deceased, considering the age and avocation of the deceased, the

Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-

per month, out of which half of the income is deducted towards

personal expenses, as the deceased is a bachelor and by applying

multiplier '18', awarded an amount of Rs.6,48,000/-. Further the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in total, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.6,78,000/-, which is just and reasonable.

Thus, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the

Tribunal on this aspect.

GSD, J MACMA.No.2127 of 2019

12. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the appellant-

Insurance Company that the deceased was travelled on the tractor and

trolley at the time of accident as unauthorized passenger and therefore,

they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However,

following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in 'New India

Insurance Company Limited vs. Darshani Devi and others, dated

12.02.2008', the Tribunal rightly directed the respondent No.2-

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation within one month

from the date of award and recover the same from the respondent

No.1. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the cogent

findings given by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

13. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

02.12.2022 pgp