Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.GOPAL REDDY
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Janarasupalli Kotiratnamma - Respondent
Decided On : 08-27-99
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - INSURANCE - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - TRAILER NOT INSURED - ACCIDENT CAUSED BY TRAILER - INSURANCE COMPANY NOT LIABLE.
Fact of the Case:
A tractor-trailer carrying laborers came into contact with a live electrical wire, resulting in the death of the laborers. The trailer was not insured with the insurance company, but the tractor was. The Tribunal held the insurance company liable for the compensation, but the insurance company appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company was not liable for the compensation because the trailer was not insured. The court noted that the trailer is a motor vehicle and is required to be insured under the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the trailer was not insured, the insurance company was not liable for the accident.
Issues: Whether the insurance company is liable for the compensation when the trailer is not insured and the accident is caused by the trailer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of motor vehicle in the Motor Vehicles Act, which includes a trailer. The court also relied on the provisions of the Act that require motor vehicles to be insured. The court held that since the trailer was not insured, the insurance company was not liable for the accident.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and modified the judgments and awards of the Tribunal by setting aside that portion by which the appellant insurance company was also made liable to pay the compensation.
( 1 ) ALL these appeals by the insurance company arise out of the common orders and decrees dated 22. 10. 1994 in three batches of petitions, i. e. , (1) O. P. Nos, 10, 11, 12 and 14 of 1993; (2) O. P. Nos. 13 and 65 of 1993; and (3) O. P. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993 on the file of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar. As the question of law involved in all these appeals is one and the same, I propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) C. M. A. Nos. 30, 32, 31 and 34 of 1995 which arise out of O. P. Nos. 10, 12, 11 and 14 of 1993 respectively are filed by the same claimants. O. P. No. 10 of 1993 is filed under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act (for short the Act ) and O. P. No. 12 of 1993 is filed under section 140 of the Act for the death of Sreenu s/o claimant No. 1 in the above O. Ps. O. P. Nos. 11 and 14 of 1993 are filed under sections 166 and 140 of the Act (Sic.) the husband of the respondent No. 1 herein and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. C. M. A. Nos. 33 and 37 of 1995 arise out of O. P. Nos. 13 and 65 of 1993 filed under sections 166 and 140 of the act, by the wife and two sons and a daughter, for the death of Subba Rao. Similarly, c. M. A. Nos. 35 and 36 of 1995 which arise out of O. P. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993 filed under sections 166 and 140 of the Act respectively by the husband and daughter for the death of Marthamma, w/o respondent No. 1 herein.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the o. Ps. are as follows: On 14. 12. 1991 the deceased Janarasupalli Veeraiah and his son Sreenu along with Subba Rao and marthamma went for coolie work to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all the O. Ps. to cut the tobacco in the fields. After cutting the tobacco, they loaded the same in the trailer bearing registration No. AP TV 739 which was attached to tractor bearing No. AP 15 T 8685. The deceased were travelling in the same tractor-cum-trailer for the purpose of unloading and processing the tobacco in the house of R-1 and R-2. The respondent No. 1 is the driver and the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the tractor. The tractor is insured with the respondent no. 3 insurance company. While proceeding to the house around 11 a. m. the driver drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner through the fields. Due to that the trailer came into contact with live electrical line and the deceased died on the spot. Thus, the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor. The legal representatives of the deceased filed the above O. Ps. claiming compensation both under sections 166 and 140 of the Act.
( 4 ) THE driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex pane.
( 5 ) THE respondent No. 3 insurance company filed separate counters denying all the allegations. It is pleaded that the trailer was not at all insured with it and as the deceased who were sitting in the trailer came into contact with live electrical wire and died, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
( 6 ) TO prove the claims, the claimant no. 1 in O. P. Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 14 of 1993 examined herself as PW 1 and got marked Exhs. A-1 to A-4. No witness was examined on behalf of the insurance company, but, Exh. B-1, policy was marked on behalf of the insurance company. Similarly, the claimant No. 1 in O. P. Nos. 13 and 65 of 1993 examined herself as PW 1 and got marked Exhs. A-l and A-2. No witness was examined on behalf of respondent but Exh. B-1 policy was marked on behalf of the insurance company. The claimant No. 1 in O. P. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993 examined himself as PW 1 and got marked Exhs. A-1 and A-2. No witness was examined on behalf of the insurance company, but Exh. B-1 policy was got marked.
( 7 ) THE learned Tribunal after analysing the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by both parties, came to the con- clusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor, and awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 for the death of Sreenu in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
