AKSHAY H. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant has approached this court under Section 110-D of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] to challenge the judgment and award made by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal [main] Banaskantha District at palanpur dated 24th September, 1980 passed in M. A. C. Petition No. 79 of 1979. By the said judgment and award the tribunal has directed the appellant as well as respondent no. 3 to satisfy the award whereby the original claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,32,250/- by way of compensation for the injuries received by him in a vehicular accident on 21st november. 1978. On that day the claimant, as an employee of the appellant, was travelling in a trolley/trailer attached to a tractor owned by the appellant. The tractor bore the Registration No. GTY 4768: whereas trailer bore the Registration No. GTY 6089. The trolley was loaded with gunny bags containing powder which were being transported from one godown to the other of the ownership of the appellant. The claimant was sitting on the heap of the gunny bags. It was averred by the claimant before the Tribunal that the driver of the tractor, who is respondent no. 2 herein, drove the vehicle at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of such driving, while negotiating a curve, the driver lost control over the vehicle and it toppled down along with the trailer. The claimant fell on the ground and was buried underneath the gunny bags containing powder. He received serious injuries. He was removed to hospital for treatment. During treatment it was learnt that his limbs below the waist were paralyzed due to serious injury to spinal cord. He, therefore, filed petition before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on various grounds. According to the claimant, he was working with appellant on daily wage basis and received Rs. 5/- per day. His monthly income was Rs. 150/ -. He also claimed different amounts under different heads such as pain, shock and suffering, medical expenses, special diet. etc.

( 2 ) THE claim was resisted by the appellant by filing written statement at Exh. 17. In the written statement it was contended by the appellant that the monthly income of the claimant was not Rs. 300/ -. The appellant also denied that the claimant had suffered paralysis of the limbs below the waist. It was also contended that there was negligence on the part of the claimant himself since without any support he was sitting on the heap of the gunny bags and that too against the instruction of the management.

2. 1. So far the Insurance Company. e respondent no. 3 is concerned, it resisted the petition by filing written statement at exh. 34. The Insurance Company denied that the claimant was being carried in the vehicle as an employee of the insured or by virtue of any contract of employment and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. It also contended that its liability was only to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen s Compensation Act [hereinafter referred to as the WC Act ]. The Insurance Company, therefore, prayed that in the event of claimant succeeding in the petition, the Tribunal may not saddle the Insurance Company with any liability beyond the liability arising under the WC Act.

2. 2. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence produced before it, oral as well as documentary, arrived at conclusion that since the accident occurred in the premises of the appellant, there was no doubt that the driver was guilty of driving the vehicle in negligent manner, since there was no scope of any collision between the two vehicles. According to it, accident took place solely due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The tribunal also assessed the amount payable to the claimant by way of compensation and directed the insured as well as Insurance company to satisfy the award. It, however, fixed the liabi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document