THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.534 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed against the Order dated 01.11.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.1592 of 2007 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum –II – Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. The petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1592 of 2007 was filed by the appellants and respondent No.4 herein claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased V.Gopi, who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.03.2007. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on behalf of the appellants/petitioners and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on their behalf. Respondents No.1 to 3 got examined R.W.1 on their behalf and marked Exs.B1 and B2 on their behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners No.2 and 3 therein preferred the present appeal seeking modification of the Order of the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.03.2007, the deceased V.Gopi along with his father-in-law attended loading and unloading of manure belonging to respondent No.1 in his agricultural land through tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 07 X 4495 and 4496. After unloading when they were returning back to D.C.Thanda in the same tractor and trailer, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and the tractor climbed heap of stones and overturned and fell on the deceased, due to which the deceased V.Gopi died.

4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that though respondents No.2 and 3 are also liable to pay compensation, the trial Court failed to pass orders against them. He also contended that deceased was engaged as a labour on the said tractor for agricultural work and due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, deceased fell down from the tractor and died. The trial Court failed to see that as the trolley attached to the tractor, it is a goods vehicle, as such the question of payment of premium does not arise. He further relied upon the Judgment reported in 2010(2) An.W.R 29(ori).

He also contended that the trial Court has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- per month instead of Rs.4,800/- per month, which is very meagre. Therefore, requested the Court to modify the Order of the trial Court.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondents No.2 to 3/Insurance Company stated that Insurance Company is exempted from paying compensation, as the premium was paid only to the tractor, but not to the trailer. The deceased was travelling in the trailer, when he met with accident, as such they are exonerated from paying compensation.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs.Rajendra and another,, [2018 LawSuit(SC) 853] and requested this Court to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the tractor. As the M.V.O.P is a beneficial legislation, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellants stated that deceased was aged about 21 years, working as a labour and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the trial Court has considered his income as only Rs.3,000/- per month, as they did not adduce any evidence either orally or documentary to prove his income, but they filed Ex.A10-Pahani, which is in the name of the father of the deceased.

9. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,, [(2011) 13 SCC 236] considering age and occupation of the deceased, this Courts finds that i