The court determined that a coolie loading or unloading goods from a tractor is considered an authorized passenger under the Motor Vehicles Act, establishing insurer liability for accidents involving such individuals.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of common order dated 23.08.2023 passed in MVOP. No.381 of 2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, one preferred by the claimants seeking for enhancement of compensation and the other by the Insurance Company challenging award of compensation by the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as follows:

(a) This is a case of death. The deceased being Banta Mastry, self-employed, maintaining team of coolie, was involved in activity of loading and unloading paddy. On 24.12.2009, the deceased was engaged for loading and unloading of paddy on tractor-cum-trailer bearing Nos. AP 37AP 1929 and AP 37Q 3715 respectively. While, deceased along with other coolies loaded the paddy into the trailer and in order to unload the same at different place, the tractor was proceeding with deceased and other coolies sitting on the trailer, on the way, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor, both tractor and trailer turned turtle, thereby, causing severe injuries to the deceased, succumbed on the spot. Crime was registered vide Cr.No.205 of 2009 for offences under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC against driver of the tractor. The deceased stated to be aged 30 years and as Banta Mastry, used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month.

-

(b) Ascertained above, the wife, two minor children and father and mother of the deceased preferred claim under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 16,00,000/- along with interest @12% per annum.

(c) 1^st and 2^nd respondents, who were driver and owner of tractor respectively remained ex parte. 3^rd respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying the allegations made in the claim, inter alia, stating that the tractor and trailer involved in accident since being goods carriage vehicle adopted for agricultural purposes, and that too, tractor had seating capacity of only one, and any passengers travelling in the tractor are deemed to be unauthorized passengers, therefore, the same violated the conditions of policy and no liability can be fastened on the insurer. Further, it was also stated that the tractor did not have valid insurance in force and the 1^st respondent did not possess effective driving license, besides disputing the age and income of the deceased.

-

(d) In order to prove the case of claimants, wife of deceased was examined as P.W.1 and the co-coolie who also travelled in the trailer was examined as P.W.2 as eyewitness and marked Exs.A1 to A5. None were examined for respondents, nor were any documents marked.

(e) Based on the pleadings and evidence let in, the Tribunal has framed following issues:-

1. Whether Desa Venkateswara Rao deceased in the case died in motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of tractor and trailer No.AP 37AP 1929 and AP 37Q 3715?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed, if so, against whom?

3. To what relief?

-

(f) The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, came to conclusion that both the driver of tractor and as well as the deceased were equally negligent and therefore, in view of contributory negligence, it cannot be held that driver of tractor alone was negligent in causing the accident. However, considering the loss of sole breadwinner of family, the Tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation to the claimants by awarding conventional hea