IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is sufficient to drive a tractor trailer, and the insurance company is not liable to cover the risk of passengers traveling on the mudguard of the tractor.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. JOSHI, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 176/2014 dated 27-9-2017 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-XIII, Madhugiri and the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 833/2018 dated 01-10-2018 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle is before this Court in these appeals assailing the liability fastened upon him by the Tribunals in respect of the accident dated 16.02.2014 at about 4.45 p.m. involving the tractor trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-06-TA-1730-1731.

4. In MVC No. 176/2014, the petitioners are the wife and mother of the deceased Manjunatha and in MVC No. 833/2016, the petitioner is the injured-Narasimhappa.

5. The case of the petitioners in both these cases is that on 16-2-2014 at around 4-45 p.m. the deceased Manjunatha and the injured-Narasimhappa were traveling in a tractor trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-06-TA-1730-1731 as loaders and un-loaders. After unloading the materials at Boda bande Palya while returning at Medigeshi village on Madhugiri- Pavagada road, the driver of the said Tractor Trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and it capsized and caused the accident. Due to the impact, deceased Manjunatha and injured Narasimhappa fell down and crushed under the said tractor. They contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said tractor trailer.

6. The deceased Manjunatha was aged about 38 years, working as a coolie and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Though he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Madhugiri immediately after the accident for treatment, he could not survive.

7. The petitioner in MVC No. 833/2016-Narasimhappa who suffered crushed wound on the nasal septum central, upper lip crushed skin loss, lacerated wounds on the center of the forehead, left eye brow and lost few teeth and there was also fracture of lower end of the right radius and the head injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Madhugiri, wherein, he took treatment as inpatient and later he took treatment at Sridevi Hospital, Tumkuru.

8. After service of notice respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before both the Tribunals through their counsels and filed separate written statements denying the cause and circumstances of the accident. They denied that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor trailer and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners in both the petitions were exorbitant, imaginary and not tenable in law. Respondent No. 1 contended that he had insured the said vehicle with the respondent No. 2 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the driver of the tractor was having a valid driving license as on the date of the accident.

9. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company contended that the deceased Manjunath and the injured Narasimhappa were unauthorized passengers in the goods vehicle i.e. tractor trailer. It was contended that the offending vehicle is having only one seating capacity and therefore, the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and also that there is a delay of one day in filing the complaint. It was contended that the claimants/petitioners in collusion with the respondent No. 1 and with the help of jurisdictional police have falsely implicated the insurer of the vehicle.

10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunals have framed appropriate issues regarding the negligence as well as the liability in both the petitions.

11. In MVC No. 176/2014, the petitioner No. 1 was examined as PW-1 and one witness was examined on their behalf as PW-2 and 7 documents were produced and marked as Exs.P1 to 7. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company examined the RTO Madhugiri as RW-1 and marked two documents as per Exs.R1 and R2. The respondent