The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'property' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the determination of the Insurance Company's liability under Section 147(2)(b) in cases involving damage to property.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, challenging the order dated 27.03.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.301/2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-XI Addl.District Judge, Krishna at Gudivada, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation to the petitioner/claimant for the death of a shebuffalo of the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.90,000/- on account of the death of a she-buffalo of the petitioner, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.01.2006.

4. The facts show that on 03.01.2006 the petitioner purchased a she-buffalo for Rs.35,000/-. The same was brought grazing by the petitioner at Telephone Nagar on 24.01.2006 at about 02.30 p.m., when the driver of the 1st respondent’s offending vehicle bearing No.AP16 T 4759, drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner, came towards left side of the road margin, dashed against the shebuffalo of petitioner, ran over, resulting in the death of the she-buffalo. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.4/2006 for the offence punishable U/s.279 of Indian Penal Code was registered. The said she-buffalo was aged 7 years, giving 5 to 6 litres milk per a day, and after the accident, the petitioner spent Rs.6,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.1,000/- for transport and Rs.4,000/- for feeding of its calf, and lost a permanent income of Rs.90,000/-.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent in the petition filed a counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on part of the driver of the crime lorry, and the petitioner had to prove that he was the owner of the cattle, and there was no contractual liability to pay compensation to the petitioner.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident is due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver/lorry bearing No.AP 16T 4759?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation? If so, from which of the respondent?

3. To what relief?

7. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, D.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W-1 corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded a compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

9. The plea of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is that the petitioner had to prove that he was the owner of the cattle, and there was no contractual liability to pay compensation to the petitioner.

10. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record, and based on the contentions of both parties, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry.

11. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded an amount of Rs.45,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

12. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation beyond Rs.6,000/-, and the order of the Tribunal is against section 147 of M.V.Act 1988, since the said provision limits the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs.6,000/- only for the damage caused to livestock.

13. The learned cou