THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 04.03.2016 in M.V.O.P.No.505 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 26.02.2011, the deceased along with other sand labours were travelling in the tractor bearing No.AP-25-AD-2161 attached to a trailor bearing No.AP25-AA-2732 as labourers and in the last trip at about 5:30 p.m., the tractor reached outskirts of Kalledi Village, the driver of the tractor driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, due to which the deceased fell down from the tractor and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately she was shifted Government Hospital, Nizamabad and from there she was taken to Private Hospital, and while undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries on 01.03.2011. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the tractor did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the accident took place only due to his rash and negligent driving and that in case if any compensation has to be paid, it is the respondent No.2/Insurance Company which has to pay the compensation, as the vehicle is insured with respondent No.2.

5. The respondent No.2 has also filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay compensation.

6. The respondent No.3 is the husband of the deceased. He contended that prior to the accident, his wife was hale and healthy and was working as a labourer, used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month and contributed to the family. It is his contention that after the death of his wife, he is looking after the welfare of his minor son, aged ‘3’ years who is the petitioner No.3 and he contended that petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed the claim petition to grab his share.

7. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP25-AD-2161 and trailor No.AP-25-AA-2732 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?

4. To what relief ?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked, respondent No.3 got examined as RW2.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,68,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri I. Gopal Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. Though there are many grounds raised while filing the appeal, the learned counsel has fairly stated during the course of arguments, that the appellant is contesting the appeal mainly on two grounds i.e., the tractor which was supposed to be used for agricultural purposes, is put to non-agricultural usage and thus there is a violation in the terms and conditions of the policy. He further argued that the deceased was travelling as an un- authorized passenger in the tractor and thus, pay and recovery has to be ordered, but the tribunal has failed to consider the said aspects. He therefore