* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
+ M.A.C.M.A No.563 of 2009
%06.06.2014
Between:
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Guntur. .... Appellant AND Gade Peda Venkateswarlu and others …. Respondents ! Counsel for Appellant : Sri T. Mahender Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents 1 to 6 : Sri K. Ananda Rao < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 2004 ACJ 1909
2) AIR 2008 SC 484 (1)
3) AIR 1999 SC 589 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.563 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed by 2nd respondent—Insurance Company, aggrieved by the award dated 08.12.2000 in O.P.No.118 of 1992 passed by M.A.C.T-cum-Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “the Tribunal).
2) The factual matrix of the case is thus:
a) On 13.10.1991, the deceased—Gade Anjaneyulu of Kommalapadu Village in Prakasam District, engaged the tractor of 1st respondent on hire for ploughing his land, near Kommalapadu bus stand and he also purchased four fertilizer bags from the shop of one Ram Prasad, ryot depot for Rs.484/- and placed on the plough of the tractor and proceeding to his field. When the tractor reached Kopperam major canal, the driver drove the tractor at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and thereby the vehicle fell into the canal and Anjaneyulu and the tractor driver died. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. It is further averred that due to untimely death of the deceased, the claimants, who are the dependents of Anjaneyulu became destitutes. On these pleas, they filed O.P.No.118 of 1992 against respondents 1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the OP.
b) Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
c) Respondent No.2/ Insurance Company filed counter and traversed the claimants’ averments. It mainly contended that travelling in the tractor is opposed to the policy conditions and hence, Insurance Company has no liability.
d) During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. Policy copy filed by respondent No.2 was marked as Ex.B1.
e) A perusal of the award would show that issue No.1 is concerned, the Tribunal basing on the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 has held that the accident was occurred due to fault of tractor driver. Issue No.2 which relates to quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal though observed that the claimants are entitled to Rs.2,36,960/- but limited the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants.
Hence the appeal by the Insurance Company.
3) Heard arguments of Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for respondents/claimants.
4 a) Challenging the award, learned counsel for appellant mainly argued that the deceased travelled in the capacity of unauthorized passenger in a tractor and therefore, his risk is not covered under the terms of policy. Even assuming that the deceased travelled in the capacity of owner of the manure bags still his risk will not be covered because the accident was occurred on 13.10.1991 whereas Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’) was amended with effect from 14.11.1994 extending coverage of policy to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative. As the accident took place long prior to the amendment of M.V.Act the risk of the deceased will not be covered under the terms of policy. It relied upon the following decisions:
1) National Insurance Company Limited v. [1] V.Chinnamma
2) National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti [2] Bharatamma
3) Smt.Mallawwa etc., v. Oriental Insurance Company [3] Limited .
5) Per contra, while supporting the award, learned counsel for respondents/claimants argued that the crime vehicle in question was insured for using it for agricultural purpose and the deceased engaged the vehicle for ploughing his land and therefore, at the relevant time of the accident the vehicle was under hire for agricultural purpose and as such there was no violation of the terms of the policy and hence the policy shall be deemed to cover the risk of the deceased. He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6) In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is:
“Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is factually and legally sustainable?”
7) POINT: Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the evidence and award, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for respondents/ claimants. Ex.B1—policy shows that the vehicle was insured for using the same for agricultural
purpose. The evidence would show that the deceased engaged the crime tractor at Kommalapadu bus stand for ploughing his land and at the bus stand he purchased four fertilizer bags and placed on the plough of the tractor and travelled in the vehicle to go to his fields. On the way, the tractor turned turtle and fell into canal and he died. So at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle was very much used for agricultural purpose and there was no violation of the terms of policy in that regard. Even in Ex.A1—FIR which was lodged within the short time after the accident, it was clearly mentioned by the father of the deceased that at 30.10.1991 at about 3.00 pm the deceased hired the crime tractor for ploughing his land and while going to the land, the tractor met with an accident on the way. So, Ex.A1—FIR confirms the version of the claimants to the effect that the vehicle was hired for agricultural purpose. When the vehicle was used for the purpose for which it was insured, the Insurance Company cannot complain that it has no liability. It is true that Section 147 of the M.V. Act was amended with effect from 14.11.1994 introducing the coverage of the risk of the owner of the goods or his authorized agent. It is also an admitted fact that accident in the instant case was occurred prior to 14.11.1994. However, the risk of the deceased is covered not as owner of the goods or his authorized representative but in the capacity of hirer of the vehicle for agricultural purpose. When the tractor is engaged by a cultivator for agricultural purpose, naturally he has to take the vehicle to his fields for ploughing the land. In that process if accident occurs, the Insurance Company must hold responsibility. The Tribunal in Para No.10 of its award made this aspect clear and fastened the liability on Insurance Company along with the owner. Therefore, the argument of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. Consequently, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant will not assist him.
8) In the result, I find no merits in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed by confirming the award passed by the Tribunal in O.P.No.118 of 1992. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 06.06.2014
Note: L.R. Copy to be marked: YES/NO knl
[1] 2004 ACJ 1909
[2] AIR 2008 SC 484 (1)
[3] AIR 1999 SC 589