THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No.124 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated

27.11.2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad, in O.P. No. 39 of 2018. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,40,600/- with interest at 9% per annum to the claimants, on account of the death of one B. Mahender (hereinafter, ‘the deceased’) in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.04.2015. The deceased was proceeding on a tractor-trolley (Nos. AP-01Q-8675 & AP-15V-2783) when the driver of the tractor drove in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes to give way to an oncoming lorry. Consequently, the attached trolley, which was loaded with bricks, tilted to one side, causing the deceased to fall, sustain multiple injuries, and eventually die instantaneously. The Tribunal held the driver, owner, and insurer of the tractor-trolley jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the insurance company (i.e., HDFC General Insurance Company Limited) filed this appeal. For convenience, the parties will be referred to as the claimants and the insurance company, respectively.

2. Heard Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurance company; and Mr. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company essentially contends that there is no contractual liability of the insurance company under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with Rule 3 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; that the owner and driver of the subject tractor-trolley remained ex parte, and therefore, the evidence adduced on behalf of the insurance company remains unrebutted; that the driver of the tractor-trolley had no valid driving licence; further, the burden of proof of possessing a valid driving licence rests on the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley and not on the insurance company, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba, (2018) 3 SCC 208; that the deceased was not working as a coolie but was an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger; and that the Tribunal did not properly decide the quantum of compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the subject tractor-trolley and awarded the compensation and that the grounds urged by the insurance company are not tenable.

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on 11.04.2015 on the outskirts of Rebbena village (near Government College, Rebbena), when the deceased was travelling on the tractor-trolley, and the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained from falling off the tractor-trolley, are not in dispute. The Tribunal framed an issue regarding whether there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor-trolley and recorded a finding based on the evidence of PW-2, who was a coolie travelling in the same tractor-trolley, that the driver drove in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes to give way to an oncoming lorry. Further, it was elicited during the cross-examination of PW-2 that the deceased, PW-2 as well as Mallesh had been performing loading and unloading of bricks on the subject tractor-trolley for the last ten years. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting PW-2’s

version. In light of the clear and unrebutted evidence of PW-2, it is established that the deceased was working as a coolie on the subject tractor- trolley and, on the fateful day, was sitting on the brick load along with other coolies and died due to falling from the brick-loaded trolley caused by the rash and negligent driving and sudden braking by the driver.

6. Even as per Pappu (supra), merel