Insurer liable for death of employee labourer in tractor-trolley used for agriculture, as extra premium for employee/driver covered him; valid driving licence upheld.

ORDER :

This appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 20.10.2011 passed by the learned VIII Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore (M.P.) in Claim Case No.84/2009.

1.1 The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that it is not liable to pay compensation as there was no valid driving licence with the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident.

2. Short facts of the case are that the deceased Vijay Kaushal was sitting in the trolley on 28.01.2009 in the capacity of a labourer employed by the owner of the tractor and trolley, which were carrying potato sacks. The deceased was employed for unloading the said sacks. When the tractor-trolley reached Maledy road Naya Kua Tiraha at Village Kodariya, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner as a result of which Vijay fell from the tractor-trolley and suffered grievous injuries due to which he died on the spot.

2.1 The claimants / respondents No.1 and 2 filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Vijay. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence, held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and accordingly, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount.

3. However, learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are contrary to the material available on record. He would first contend that the labourer was never covered under the insurance policy, which was produced before the Tribunal as Ex. D-7. Even the Insurance Policy of the trolley marked as Ex. D-8 does not cover labourer. He further submits that the deceased was sitting in the trolley and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as the trolley has no sitting capacity and was not meant for carrying passengers. He also submits that in view of the statement of NAW-2, the Insurance Company has clearly proved that the labourer was not covered under the Insurance Policy. He further submits that the owner of the vehicle who deposed as NAW-4 has categorically stated that the deceased fell from the trolley due to his own mistake, therefore, the finding of rash and negligent driving has wrongly been recorded by the Tribunal.

3.1 Learned counsel thus submits that since the labourer was not covered under the policy, the Insurance Company ought not to have been held liable to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation.

3.2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Brij Mohan and Others reported in (2007) 7 SCC 56 as well as the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bhav Singh vs. Smt. Savirani and Others in 2008 (1) MPLJ 72.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants / respondents No.1 and 2 support the findings recorded in the award and submits that in view of the clear pleadings in the written statement, particularly para 16 thereof, it is evident that the labourer was a third party and was clearly covered under the terms of the Insurance Policy, especially in view of the fact that an extra premium of Rs.75/- was charged for an employee / driver. The deceased Vijay Kaushal was indisputably an employee of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, was clearly covered under the Insurance Policy.

4.1 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Amrit Lal Sood vs. Kaushalya Devi Thapar in (1998) 3 SCC 744.

5. Learned counsel for the owner reiterated the arguments advanced by learned counse