THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3199 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 2
before the Tribunal, preferred this appeal challenging the award and
decree, dated 10.02.2006, passed in M.A.T.O.P.No. 925 of 2003 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) (FTC-
III), Khammam.
The claimant, respondent No. 2 herein, filed the O.P. claiming
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of her husband, Govinda
Surya Rao, aged 50 years, in the motor accident that occurred on
19.05.2002. According to the claimant, the owner of the crime vehicle i.e.,
Tractor and Trailer bearing No. AP 16T 5848 and 5849, engaged the
deceased and others as coolies to load and unload the mud on his tractor
and while the offending vehicle reached near Rajyalaxmi Crusher Mill of
Khajipuram Village, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden breaks, as a result of
which, the deceased fell down from the tractor, sustained injuries on his
vital parts of the body and died on the spot. According to the claimant, the
deceased used to earn Rs.80/- per day working as coolie. Therefore, she
claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Considering the claim and the
counter filed by the Insurance Company and on evaluation of the evidence,
both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. and
awarded total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum
holding the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Now, the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that there was
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy since the offending 2
vehicle was entrusted on hire for transportation of gravel to one
G. Sreenivasa Rao, and that the coolie was not allowed to travel on the
tractor and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-
claimant, contended that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein. Perused the
material available on record.
The learned Tribunal, while answering issue No. 1 whether the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
tractor bearing No. AP 16-T-5848/5849/R.1, considering the evidence of
P.W.1, coupled with Exs.A.1, A.2 and A.4 C.C. of FIR, Charge sheet and
MVI Report respectively, and as no contra evidence was adduced by the
Insurance Company to disprove the evidence of P.W.1, rightly came to the
conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the said finding recorded by the learned Tribunal.
With regard to the other contention of the learned Standing Counsel
for the appellant that there was breach of conditions of the policy as the
vehicle was given on hire that too for transportation of gravel, the learned
Tribunal has rightly rejected the said contention holding that Ex.B.1 policy is
a comprehensive (A+B) policy which covers the coolies/other employees for
unloading purpose; that there was no restriction for agriculture purpose; and
that as the vehicle was used for transportation of mud, which is part of
agricultural operations, the deceased can be treated as a coolie on the 3
tractor. Therefore, this Court finds no force in the contention of the learned
Standing Counsel for the appellant in this regard.
Coming to the quantum of compensation, considering the claim of
claimant that the deceased was earning Rs.80/- per day, considering the
age of the deceased as 50 years at the time of fatal accident, applying the
multiplier '13', the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- towards general and special damages, which cannot be said
to be exorbitant. In fact, it is to be noted that while deciding the quantum of
compensation, in the light of the decided case laws of the Apex Court,
under the heads of conventional charges and future prospects, the claimant
is entitled more compensation than the one awarded, but however, since
this is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, this Court is not inclined
to go into the other issues and this Court finds that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Therefore, I see no reason
to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
The M.A.C.M.A. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
03.01.2022 tsr 4
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3199 of 2012
DATE: 03-01-2022
