Occupants on the mud-guard of a tractor are not covered by statutory insurance, affirming the need for strict adherence to permitted vehicle use under the Motor Vehicles Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

This appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 16.06.2014 passed in MVC No.300/2013 on the file of Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-II, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation and also modification of liability to pay compensation holding the insurance company is liable.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.07.2011 at about 5.45 p.m., in the land of Buden Sab Hadagali, the claimant was proceeding on the mud-guard of tractor engine at the time of tilling the land along with driver of the said tractor engine. At that time, respondent No.1 being driver of the said tractor engine bearing Reg.No.KA-35/T-9766, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and turtled it by losing the control over the said tractor, due to which, the claimant, who was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor engine sustained fracture to his left femur, left thigh, left leg and all over his body and took treatment in the Government Hospital, Huvinahadagali.

Therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation.

4. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, has granted compensation of Rs.84,160/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., holding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

5. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not held correct parameters while assessing and quantifying the compensation. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation. Further sought to fasten liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation.

RE. LIABILITY:

7. In the present case, the Tribunal held that the claimant had sat on the mud guard of tractor engine at the time of tilling the land along with driver of the said tractor engine and the driver lost control over the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving and caused accident. Hence the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal has fastened liability on the owner and driver of the tractor.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimant was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor engine. This is evident from the FIR at Ex.P.1. Therefore, submitted that claimant was sitting on the mud guard of engine and hence, risk is not covered under the insurance policy. Therefore, when it is proved by the complaint and FIR, which is produced by the claimant himself that he sat on the mud guard of tractor engine, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify and the owner is held liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

9. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga and another vs. K. Guleppa and others , ILR 2021 KAR 3377 has formulated the questions of law to be considered as follows:

I) Whether a person travelling on a mud-guard of a tractor can be construed as an authorized passenger or an unauthorized passenger and liability of such person is covered or not?

II) Whether the persons who are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor can be construed as employees so as to cover their risk stat