The court held that the owner of the vehicle is liable for compensation despite insurance policy limitations, as evidence supported the claimant's account of injury and negligence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This is claimant's appeal against judgment and award dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.264/008.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.09.2007 at about 6.00 p.m., the appellant after attending his coolie work was going home in tractor-trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-16-T-2173- 74. The said tractor met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor. As a result of which, he sustained the fracture of 1/3rd of the lower end of the left tibia. He took treatment in the Government Hospital at Chitradurga and spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. He has been suffering from permanent disability. He was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to injuries sustained in the said accident, he lost his physical strength and became dependent. With these reasons, he prayed to award the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. Respondent No.1, who was a minor at the time of filing of the objection, denied the contents of the claim petition and also denied that claimant was travelling in the said tractor- trailer. With these reasons, he prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Respondent No.2/insurer filed a counter denying the contention of the claim petition and further contended that its liability is restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and holding of a valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the tractor-trailer.

6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues for its determination.

7. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of parties to the proceedings. Thereafter, hearing the arguments answered the issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and dismissed their claim petition by the impugned judgment and award.

8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that fact of the accident is not seriously disputed. A criminal case was registered against the driver of tractor-trailer and he was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. The said charge sheet has not been challenged by the driver of the said vehicle or owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal in its finding without considering the said point, answered the issues in negative only on the ground that he was a coolie working under respondent No.1(a) and the said finding is incorrect.

10. Learned counsel further submits that even if the insurance company is not liable; believing that he was unauthorised passenger travelling in a goods vehicle but the owner is liable to pay the compensation. The owner has not explained in what capacity claimant was travelling in the said vehicle as on the date of the incident. With these reasons, he prayed to award reasonable compensation. He further submitted that the claimant is poor and illiterate and he was unable to examine a doctor to prove his disability. Considering the materials available on record, a reasonable amount of compensation be awarded.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, as per the contention of the claim petition, he was travelling in the tractor-trailer, which is a goods vehicle and the policy of insurance does not cover the risk of coolie. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. For the sake of di