Where an insurance policy for a tractor-trailer includes an additional premium paid for the trailer, it covers coolies/laborers traveling therein, making the insurer jointly and severally liable for compensation; future prospects and spousal/familial consortium must be included in the quantum calculation.

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 449/2022

JUDGMENT:

1. This Motor Accident Claims Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Appellants – petitioners - claimants being aggrieved by the Order/Award and Decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.492 of 2016 dated 13.01.2020 awarding an amount of Rs.12,40,000/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

2. The 1st petitioner being wife, 2nd petitioner being daughter, 3rd petitioner being son, 4th and 5th petitioners being parents of S.Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.492 of 2016 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest and costs, for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.492 of 2016 are that: on 04.04.2016 at late night, the deceased started journey on tractor and trailer bearing No.AP21 TU 8975 and AP 21TU 8976 with stone load from his village Kethavaram to go to Kambadahal village of C.Belgal Mandal as coolie to unload the said load. When the tractor and trailer reached near the field of Boya Laxmanna of Kambadahal village, 1st respondent drove his tractor and trailer with high speed, in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the tractor and tailor and the said tractor and trailer turned turtle. As a result, deceased fell beneath stone load and died on the spot.

i. On complaint, a case in Cr.No.22/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC was registered in C.Belegal police station against the driver of the tractor, i.e., 1st respondent.

ii. At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 37 years, was doing coolie work to load and unload stones to tractors and earning Rs.300/- per day. The petitioners were depending upon the income of deceased and due to sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners have lost income, company, love and affection and leading miserable life.

iii. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by 1st respondent, who is working under 2nd respondent – owner of the tractor and 3rd respondent being the insurer, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners with interest from the date of the petition till realization.

4. 1st and 2nd respondents remained exparte.

5. 3rd respondent/insurer filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition and the petitioners are put to strict proof with regard to the manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle, registration of crime by C.Belegal police station, age, occupation and income of the deceased.

The deceased travelled in the said tractor and trailer as passenger, not as coolie and there is no necessity to unload stones from trolley of tractor by coolie as it had Hydrolic system and it could unload stone by itself without any manual labour. The trailer and tractor is only for Agricultural purpose and not meant for commercial purpose. As 1st and 2nd respondents violated policy terms and there is delay in registering F.I.R., against 1st respondent, 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial :

1) W