The court established that unauthorized travel does not exempt the Insurance Company from liability when a worker is fatally injured due to the driver's negligence while supervising the work.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 15.03.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry (for short “the learned MACT”), claimants in the case filed the present appeal. Under the impugned decree and order, the learned MACT awarded a compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/- by the claimants for the death of one Gurram Krishna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident, while allowing the claim against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle and dismissing the same against the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

2. Claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, claimant No.3 is the divorced sister and claimant No.4 is niece of the deceased.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company contested the case.

Case of the claimants:

4. On 04.09.2003 at about 11:00 am, deceased was near Vengamamba quarry, Yeleswaram, Respondent No.1 the driver of the tractor bearing No. AHW 6327 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) came in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the tractor which fell down on the deceased causing death of the deceased. Deceased was hale and healthy; aged 25 years; working as clerk in Vengamamba Engineering works, Yeleswaram; earning Rs.3,000/- per month and he was the sole bread winner for the family. Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for accident. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 is the insurer. Hence all respondents are liable to pay compensation.

-

5. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company resisted the claim, putting the claimants to strict proof of all the allegations including negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid driving license for him, age, occupation, income of the deceased and dependency of claimants. It is further claimed by the Insurance Company that the deceased was on the vehicle at relevant time and the same is unauthorized travel and a violation of policy conditions.

Evidence before the learned MACT:

On behalf of the claimants:

6. Claimant No.1 deposed as P.W.1. one Bhathina Chanti working at Quarry and an eye witness was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-MVI Report, Ex.A3-post mortem certificate, Ex.A4-Inquest Report, Ex.A5-Charge sheet and Ex.A6-Certificates indicating salary of deceased Rs.2,200/- per month were got marked.

-

On behalf of the Respondents:

7. K. Narasimhamurthy, ASI, Yeleswaram Police Station was examined as R.W.1 and one A.V. Rohini Kumar, Officer of Insurance Company was examined as R.W.2 and Ex.B1-Case Diary part-1 maintained by Police, Ex.B2-Policy copy, and Ex.B3-B-Register/RC of the motor vehicle were got marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:

On negligence:

8. Evidence of P.W.2 is indicating the negligence of Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W.2 is a direct witness who is cited in the charge sheet as well as in the inquest report as witness.

9. Deceased was working as labour supervisor. Ex.A5 charge sheet laid against the Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the accident is attributable to the negligence of Respondent No.1.

On compensation:

10. The income of the deceased is Rs.2,200/- per month, as per Ex.A6 Salary Certificate. As per evidence of P.W.1 and 2 deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month but there is no documentary evidence. Person who issued Ex.A6 is not examined. Therefore, the income can be taken at Rs.50/- per day and Rs.15,000/- per month