JUDGEMENT

The Insurance Company has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Hosur on the ground that the deceased Senthamilselvam, the son of the petitioners, was a tortfeasor and therefore they cannot seek compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The brief facts are as follows.

2. The deceased Senthamizhselvan, who is the son of petitioners / respondents 1 and 2 herein was ploughing the lands of one Annaian using the tractor belonging to the 1st respondent bearing TN 30 AY 1737. The 1st respondent had been letting out the tractor for agricultural operations and the deceased Senthamizhselvan was entrusted with the work of ploughing the lands using the tractor. 3. While so, on 13.06.2015 at about 7 Hrs., when the deceased Senthamizhselvan was so ploughing the lands of the said Annaian, he had lost control of the tractor when the tractor was crossing a ridge situate in the lands. He fell down and was caught between the wheels of the tractor and crushed to death on the spot. The accident occurred while he was “in the course and out of his employment”.

4. The petitioners therefore filed the petition seeking compensation before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Hosur.

5. The 2nd respondent / Insurance Company had taken a defense that the deceased Senthamizhselvan was a tortfeasor, therefore, the petitioners could not seek compensation. That apart, they had also taken a defense that he was not possessing the requisite license for driving a tractor as he only possessed a light motor vehicle license.

6. The Tribunal below overruled the defense regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the deceased was himself the tortfeasor by stating that the claim was maintainable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore the Insurance Company is bound to pay compensation. The Tribunal below had arrived at the compensation of Rs.19,24,400/-.

7. It was challenging this order, that the Insurance Company is before this Court.

8. The main ground of attack is on the maintainability of the claim petition. The Insurance Company would rely upon the Judgement reported in 2020 (2) SCC 550 – Ramkhiladi and others Vs. The United India Insurance Company and others and would submit that the petition is not even maintainable under Section 163 A of the Act.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

10. The respondents though served had not entered appearance through counsel or in person.

11. No doubt, the accident had occurred while the deceased was himself operating the tractor. However, the deceased was riding the tractor only in the course of his employment under the 3rd respondent herein. The 3rd respondent who owns the tractor was giving it on hire to various land owners for ploughing the lands for agricultural activities. The deceased Senthamizhselvan was entrusted with the work of driving tractor and ploughing the lands. The accident had occurred while he was on duty.

12. It is no doubt true that the petition cannot be maintained under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, this petition is maintainable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2021 (2) TNMAC 15 -

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sangeetha and others, had proceeded to award compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, by treating it as an accidental death which occurred in the course of his employment. The facts of that case applies squarely to the instant case.

13. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal since the Tribunal has also treated the claim as one under the Employees' Compensation Act (Workmen's Compensation Act). The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

28.03.2022 kan Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order To The Motor Accident C