Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 478 (AP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naredla Laxmi

2010-06-17

NOUSHAD ALI

body2010
JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the award, dated 25.7.2007, in MVOP No.792 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge) at Khammam (for brevity "the Tribunal"), wherein the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation in favour of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The claimants, who are the legal representatives, claimant No.1 being the wife and claimants 2 and 3 being the sons of one Naredla Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), filed the MVOP referred to above and sought for compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of the deceased. 3. On 2.10.2003, the deceased was travelling in a Tractor-Trailer bearing Registration No.AP20-T-6271/6272 as a coolie. On account of the driver driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased fell down, came under the vehicle and consequently died. 4. The Tribunal, considered the matter and on the basis of the evidence adduced before it in respect of the issue relating to rash and negligence, recorded a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. On the issue as to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the claimants were entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. These two issues are not under challenge in this appeal filed by the Insurance Company appellant. The Tribunal framed an additional issue in IA No.519 of 2007 as follows, which is under challenge in this appeal. "Whether the victim was travelling in the Tractor-Trailer as a coolie?" 5. The said issue came to be framed as the Insurance Company took an objection that the insurance policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle did not cover the coolies travelling in the vehicle. Claimant No.1 examined herself as PWI and examined another, who is said to be an eye-witness to the accident, as PW2. The owner of the vehicle examined himself as RW 1. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company failed to establish that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorised traveller. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for both parties. 7. The owner of the vehicle examined himself as RW 1. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence. On consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company failed to establish that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorised traveller. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for both parties. 7. Sri R.K. Suri, learned Counsel representing the Insurance Company, would submit that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle unauthorisedly and the policy, which was in force, did not cover such unauthorised persons. 8. On the other hand, Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel representing the claimants, would submit that the deceased was a coolie and the insurance policy covers such persons, in which regard extra premium was also paid. 9. It is on evidence that the deceased was a coolie. RW 1, who is said to be a contractor by profession and who is also the owner of the vehicle, deposed that the vehicle was being used for transporting goods and other construction materials. He deposed that the deceased was working under him as a coolie and he was proceeding in the vehicle not as an unauthorised passenger but as a coolie. From the said evidence, it is manifest that the deceased was not an unauthorised passenger but he was employed by the owner of the vehicle. The Insurance Company did not adduce evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger. On the relevant date, the vehicle was covered by Policy No.550404/311/02/6708l37, which is marked as Ex.B1. A perusal of Ex.B1 shows that it had a coverage in respect of seven employees of the insured in respect of whom separate premium was also paid. It is, therefore, manifest that the policy covered not only the vehicle but also the employees. As noted above, the deceased being an employee of the owner of the vehicle, which fact is evident from the evidence and other relevant material, the Insurance Company is also liable to satisfy the decree passed by the Tribunal. 10. In the above analysis, there are no merits in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.