IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.NO. 1824 OF 2005.
Between:
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Branch Manager, Kadapa district. … Appellant/Respondent No.2 V/s.
K.Vannuramma & Ors. … Respondents/claimants Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju Counsel for the Respondents : Sri D.Kodanda Rami Reddy The court made the following : [judgment follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.NO. 1824 OF 2005 JUDGMENT :
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Kadapa filed this appeal challenging the award and decree dated 04/03/2005 passed in MVOP.No. 262 of 2002 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District Judge, Kadapa.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The deceased was the son of the first claimant and brother of second claimant. He was working as a cooli. On 19/2/2000 the deceased and others were engaged on the tractor and trailor bearing No.AP-04-547 and 548 respectively. The trailor was loaded with sand and while it was returning the accident occurred. It is alleged that the driver of the tractor had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to the jerks the deceased fell down from the tractor, sustained injuries all over the body, face and legs. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Rayachoty and thereafter shifted to SVRR Hospital for better treatment. He had taken treatment for a period of six months and while undergoing treatment in the hospital he died on 10/8/2000.
3. The Insurance Company contested the matter. The age, occupation and income of the deceased as pleaded by the claimants have been denied. It is also their case that deceased fell down from the trailor due to his own negligence. The Insurance Company further contended that claimants have to prove that the driver of the tractor and trailor is having valid driving licence at the time of accident.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues for trial :
(i) whether the death of the deceased by name Kothappali Masthan son of K.Hussain occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailor bearing No.AP-04-547 and 548 by its driver belonging to respondent No.1 ?
(ii) whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom ?
(iii) To what relief ?
5. On behalf of claimants, the second claimant was examined as PW-1 and one B.Peer Sab as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, one of the employee was examined as RW-1 and Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked.
6. The Claims Tribunal has referred to the contents of Ex.B-1 copy of Insurance Policy and came to the conclusion that premium was paid for third party risk, the driver/workmen No.1 and also for loading and unloading coolies. The learned standing counsel for Insurance company contends that the policy does not cover the risk of coolis and there is contributory negligence. But the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the policy was in force and the policy covers the risk of coolis. However, as seen from the contents of Ex.B-1 policy, it appears that the contention of Insurance Company is that policy does not cover the risk of coolis is not correct.
7. As seen from the evidence, it is clear that the driver of the tractor had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to jerks the deceased fell down on the ground. Mere sitting on the sand cannot be said to be a factor or contribution for occurring the accident. It is clear from the evidence that there is no contributory negligence in this case. Neither the driver of tractor nor any cooli were examined by the Insurance Company. Moreover as seen from the record, the deceased had fell down from the trailor and sustained injuries. That means at the time of accident, he was disconnected to the trailor and he fell down on the ground and sustained injuries. It means the deceased after touching the ground sustained injuries. So he was a third party when he sustained injuries and in that view also it is clear that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Claims Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, in this appeal shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR .
01/12/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.NO. 1824 OF 2005 Circulation No. 182 Date: 01/12/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43