The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company can be held liable to pay compensation in cases where the claimant is injured while engaged in activities related to the transportation of goods, even if the vehicle is used for commercial purposes or there is a violation of the terms of the permit.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 11.03.2008 in MVOP No. 1147 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Amalapuram (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the claimant has preferred this appeal for not fastening the liability on the 3rd respondent/insurance company.

2. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.

3. The petitioner filed a claim under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 17.04.2004, the petitioner and two others went to Panasaladoddi to weigh and load paddy in the trailer. After completing the loading, the petitioner and Narma Bapanna Sai sat on the load in the trailer bearing No. AP5U428 attached to the tractor bearing No. AP5U427 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle). The 1st respondent had driven the tractor rashly and negligently and it overturned due to such driving. The petitioner and Bapanna fell, and the paddy load fell on them. The petitioner had suffered a fracture to his spinal cord. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Kothapeta.

5. The 3rd respondent filed his counter, submitting that the 1st respondent did not possess a valid driving license and he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated relevant issues. During the trial, on behalf of the claimant, PWs. 1 and two got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A.23 and Exs.X1 and X2. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the respondents. The 3rd respondent filed a petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and it was allowed permitting the 3rd respondent to take the defences available to the insured to the extent permissible.

7. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.55,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum against respondents 1 and 2 from the date of the petition till the date of realization; the claim against the 3rd respondent is dismissed without costs.

8. Heard learned counsel for the claimant and 3rd respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he sustained an injury to his spinal cord and cannot do any hard work as a coolie. The disability sustained by him should be treated as 100% disability. The Tribunal should have awarded a minimum amount of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal should have seen that the vehicle in question is being used for the agricultural purpose to transport the agricultural produce, so the 3rd respondent/insurance company cannot disown its liability in payment of compensation to the claimant.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/insurance company supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

11. Now the points for determination are whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and whether it requires enhancement? And whether the Tribunal is justified in not fastening the liability on the insurance company?

POINT No. 1:

12. As seen from the grounds of appeal, the material on record, and the submission made on either side, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident in question. The insurance company has not preferred any appeal questioning the findings about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. In view of the same, this Court finds that the particulars of the accident need not be mentioned in detail.

13. The petitioner examined as PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 that he sustained injuries in the accident is not disputed by the respondent/insurance company by preferring appeal or cross- objections. To s