1. As against the claim made for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, the legal representatives of the deceased, i.e., claimants 1 to 6 (parents, husband, children and brother) were awarded a sum of Rs.4,05,500/-, which were ordered to be payable jointly and severally by the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. Challenging the liability to pay the compensation and the quantum, the Insurance Company has preferred this Appeal.

2. The Appeal has been filed mainly on the following grounds:-

(i) The offending vehicle, namely, the tractor and trailor should be used only for agricultural purposes and not for commercial purpose and that, as the vehicle on the day of accident was put into use for commercial purpose, namely, the purpose of supplying water to Municipality, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.

(ii) The deceased was sitting in the mudguard of the tractor at the time of accident and therefore, it is a case of “invited death” for which neither the owner nor the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

(iii) The multiplier cannot exceed more than 12', when the age of the victim was only 34; the amount awarded is liable to be scaled down.

3. To appreciate the contentions raised in the grounds of Appeal, it is necessary to look into the mode of accident.

4. It is the allegation in the claim petition that the deceased was employed as a Coolie for the purpose of filling up the water and while he was travelling in the Tractor, he fell down on account of the rash and negligent driving and he died. Ex.P-3 is the Insurance Policy of the Tractor, bearing Registration No.TN23-Y-2003. Through R.W.1, an employee of the Insurance Company, Ex.R-1 Investigation Report and Ex.R-2-R.C.Book have been filed. Under Ex.R-1 the Investigation Report of the Insurance Company, the deceased Ravi has been described as a Coolie.

5. According to the contention of the Insurance Company, there had been violation of permit conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5.1. The Insurance Policy (Ex.P-3) of the tractor alone has been filed and the copy of the policy pertaining to the Trailor has not been filed. When it is the contention of the Insurance Company that there had been violation of the policy conditions, it is for the Insurance Company to have produced the policy along with the terms and conditions of the policy. The Insurance Company has not filed the same, except mentioning the policy number in the investigation report, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.

5.2. Under Ex.P-3 Insurance Policy, premium has been paid, covering the load man. Finding that the deceased had been a load man, the Tribunal has held that the deceased is covered by the policy of insurance and therefore the insurance company is liable. Describing the physical features of the tractor, the Tribunal has given a finding that there had been a place allotted for the cleaner or the load man to sit in the tractor.

5.3. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (1) TN MAC 602 (National Insurance Company, Gobichettipalayam v. Guruswamy and others) where-under it was held that when the claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle, having zero seating capacity, and when the policy prohibited carrying of anybody excepting the driver, then the Insurance Company is not liable.

5.4. This decision has been given pertaining to Minidoor goods vehicle having zero seating capacity. But, so far as this case is concerned, the Tribunal has described, how seating place has been provided for one more person to sit, apart from the driver. Moreover, the policy covers the load man also. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability to pay the compensation.

5.5. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the decision reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 88 (Ravunammal and another v. Sambandham and Others) and conten

Click Here to Read the rest of this document