IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that even in cases of rule violations, the court may consider the circumstances and weigh the factors to determine liability.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Shri G.N. Raichur, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

2. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed in MVC Nos. 1661/2006 and 1662/2006 dated 25.05.2011 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi.

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeals are as under:

3.1. In respect of a road traffic accident that has occurred on 11.01.2006, involving a tractor and two trailers bearing registration No. MXV-5429-MH-09/U-1499/1501 (for short ‘T.T. Unit’) near Stavanidhi cross on NH-4 Nippani at about 11.30 a.m. when the T.T. Unit moving from Munvalli to Chinchawad.

3.2. The inmates of the T.T. Unit including goats and other pet animals got hurt and two of the goats died in the said road accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the T.T. Unit.

4. Complaint came to be lodged wherein the aforesaid facts were mentioned and the police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the T.T. Unit.

5. The claim petition was resisted by the Insurance Company by filing necessary written statement.

6. The Tribunal after raising necessary issues, considered the oral and documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the parties, allowed the claim petitions in part in a sum of Rs. 44,880/- in respect of claim in MVC No. 1661/2006 and Rs. 61,040/- in respect of claim in MVC No. 1662/2006 and held the liability on the Insurance Company.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability of the Insurance Company as admittedly there is a violation of Rule 74 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the ‘K.M.V. Rules’) in prohibiting the transportation of the animals in the T.T. Unit.

8. Shri G.N. Raichur, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also contended that the unloaded weight of two trailers exceeded 7,500 k.g. and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and sought for allowing the appeals.

9. Per contra, Shri Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-claimant supported the impugned judgment and contended that the labourer moved for harvesting the sugarcane crop and they were moving in groups along with their belongings because they will have to stayed in the sugarcane lands at that juncture, necessarily they may have to take their belongings and pet animals with them and therefore, being the rustic villagers they were allowed to travel in the trailer along with their belongings and pet animals. For contending out of the said aspect of the matter, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability and sought dismissal of the appeal.

10. In view of the rival contentions of parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

11. In order to appreciate the arguments put forth on behalf of the Insurance Company, it is necessary to culled out Rule 74 of K.M.V. Rules, which reads as under:

“74. Carriage of animals in goods vehicle:

(1) No cattle shall be carried in a goods vehicle in a public place unless:

(A) in the case of goat, sheep, deer or pig:

(i) a minimum floor space of 0.2 square meter per head of such cattle is provided in the vehicles.

(ii) proper arrangements for ventilation are made.

(iii) it carried in a double decked goods vehicle:

(a) The upper deck flooring is covered with metal sheets with a minimum height of 7.62 cms. raised on all four sides so as to prevent the animal waste matter such as urine, litter, etc. falling on the animals on the lower deck.

(b) Proper arrangements for drainage are made on each floor.

(c) Wooden battens are provided on each floor, to prevent slipping of hoofs of the animals.

(B) in the case of any other cattle:

(i) a minimum floor space of 2m x 1m per head of cattle and half of such floor space for a young one of