This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the owner of the Tractor, who has been fastened with the liability to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,700/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand and Seven Hundred only) as compensation for the death of one Gurusamy in the accident occurred on 23.06.1997, when he was travelling by sitting on the mud guard of a Tractor driven in a rash and negligent manner leading to the accident.
2. The Tribunal, in the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Gurusamy, found that the Tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner and fastened the liability on the owner of the Tractor as the deceased was travelling on the mud guard of the Tractor which is in violation of the policy conditions of the Insurance Company. Therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the owner of the Tractor.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the Tractor was used only for the agricultural purpose and only to help the driver, the deceased went along with the driver sitting on the mud guard. He would rely upon the judgments of this Court to state that even if a person sitting on the mud guard fell and sustained injuries or died, the compensation has to be paid by the Insurance Company.
5. By relying upon the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in (i) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Hosur v. Mrs.Loganayagi & 4 others reported in 2009-2-L.W. 953 and (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Palani and another reported in 2010 (1) TN MAC 296. The other judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Baljit Kaur and others reported in 2004-3-L.W. 785 and National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. V.Chinnamma & others reported in 2004 (2) TN MAC 123 (SC), he would submit that the Insurance coverage is available to the owner as he paid extra Rs.45/- (Rupees Forty Five only) towards additional premium under the head 'I.M.T.17'. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the award of the Tribunal and fasten the liability on the Insurance Company.
6. On the other hand, Mr.J.S.Murali, learned Counsel for the sixth respondent-Insurance Company would submit that once the Tractor is meant for agricultural purposes, it should be used for the same and at the time of the accident, apart from the driver, four other persons travelled in the Tractor and that too, without a Trailer and therefore, it is a violation of policy conditions and there cannot be any liability on the part of the sixth respondent-Insurance Company. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pauldurai and others reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 545 and The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Pudukottai v. Chitra and others reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 636 to stress the point that when the gratuitous passengers travelled in the Tractor sustained injuries, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. The learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants sought for permission of this Court to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant/owner of the Tractor.
8. A close scrutiny of the records, especially, Ex.P.1 - F.I.R would show that the driver of the Tractor himself stated in the F.I.R that four persons travelled along with him. Therefore, it is clear that four persons have travelled in the Tractor. In case, a Trailer is attached, there is a possibility that those persons would have travelled as coolies for the purpose of loading and unloading the agricultural produces and there is no necessity for four persons to travel in the Tractor and that too, for the help of the driver.
9. As rightly pointed out by Mr.J.S.Murali, learned Counsel for the sixth respondent-Insurance Company, the driver of the Tractor alone is covered by the insurance policy. Even if additional premium has been paid towards third party claim, it is only for the coolies who are engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading the agricultural produces or in connection with the agricultural works.
10. In this case, the Tractor alone has been used without a Trailer and therefore, it is evident that the said four persons should have travelled as gratuitous passengers and not as coolies and only the third parties are entitled for compensation, apart from the coverage of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer. In the case on hand, the deceased travelled along with three other persons. Therefore, it is a violation of policy conditions and therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the Tractor cannot be termed as a goods vehicle and it is only meant for the agricultural works and for the persons, who travelled in the Tractor, no compensation can be granted and the said finding is according to law. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant/owner of the Tractor are with regard to the claims wherein the coolies were in service when the Tractor was attached with a Trailer. Here, the Tractor alone was used and therefore, the facts of the case in those cases are not applicable and the judgments were given to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case therein.
11. In the result,
(i) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 1998, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ? Sub Judge, Periyakulam;
(ii) The respondents 1 to 5/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.352 of 1998, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ? Sub Judge, Periyakulam;
(iii) The appellant/owner of the Tractor is directed to deposit the balance amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.352 of 1998, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum ? Sub Judge, Periyakulam, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;
(iv) On such deposit, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the respective share amounts of the respondents 1 to 5/claimants 1 to 5 to their respective Personal Savings Bank Account Numbers through RTGS/NEFT system, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal, within a period of one week thereafter;
(v) The respondents 1 to 5/claimants 1 to 5 are directed to submit their Account Details along with the copies of their passbooks to the Tribunal forthwith; and
(vi) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -
Sub Judge, Periyakulam.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..