The liability of an insurance company under Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is limited to Rs. 50,000/- in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward.

A.S. Tripathi, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment and award dated 22.11.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 82,000/- against the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 50,000/- according to law. Rest of the amount was to be paid by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

2. Facts of the case are that on 14.9.86, the tractor No. CPW 9504 was being taken for bringing bajri, a commercial purpose. The deceased Sarupibai, wife of the claimant Raghuvar was taken on the same tractor as a labourer on contract to load bajri at a particular spot. On the way, while going towards that spot, Sarupibai fell down from the tractor. The wheels of the tractor crushed her and she died on the spot. A claim of Rs. 3,20,000/- was made by the husband of the deceased. The same was contested by the owner, driver and the insurance company. The Tribunal framed necessary issues and held that according to fair calculation, the claimant was entitled to Rs. 82,000/- as compensation. Rs. 72,000/- was against the loss of life and Rs. 10,000/- was for mental agony and consortium.

3. M.A. No. 77 of 1995 was filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle who are father and son. The other appeal M.A. (MM) No. 84 of 1995 was filed by the insurance company. These two appeals are connected. They are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. M.A. No. 77 of 1995 shall be the leading case.

4. The first question raised in these appeals was as to whether the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver or it was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased herself.

5. On this point, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that a number of labourers were being taken on that tractor. One of them Sarupibai fell down from the tractor and was crushed under the wheels of the tractor and on that count her death had occurred in view of the fact that the wheels of the tractor crushed her when she fell down from the tractor. Falling of a person and being crushed under the wheels of the tractor itself indicates that there was a rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. If a person falls down from a tractor, it is not likely that the person is to be crushed by the wheels of the tractor. Merely falling would have been a different case. But since the wheels of the tractor had crushed the deceased and the deceased died on the spot, it was definitely a case of rash and negligent driving by the driver.

6. Attention of this Court was drawn to the fact that the driver of the tractor was tried for a criminal offence under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code and that case ended in acquittal in S.T. No. 131 of 1989. Judgment of S.T. No. 131 of 1989 is filed on record in which benefit of doubt has been given to the accused in view of the fact that Sarupibai fell down from the tractor that could be by her own mistake, drowsiness or inadvertence. The findings recorded in the said sessions trial, however, were not assailed in appeal and it had become final. The findings recorded in the said sessions trial only have given benefit of doubt to the accused. That is not binding upon the Claims Tribunal to accept the same as such. The Claims Tribunal has assessed the facts and the evidence led in the claim case on their merits and came to the conclusion that rash and negligent driving by the driver was proved on record.

7. Reference was made to the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), in which it was held by the Supreme Court that:

The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him, but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who ca