Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 94 (AP)

Gangala Raju v. Rayavarapu Apparao

2010-02-17

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2010
JUDGMENT C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. 1. This motor accidents civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the award dated 16.7.2004 in M.V.O.P. No. 244 of 2000, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Fourth Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Kakinada (for short 'the Tribunal'), to the extent that the court below disallowed the claim for compensation made by the Appellants. 2. The deceased was stated to have been travelling in the trailer of a tractor, bearing registration No. AP 5T-1560/1561, which met with an accident resulting in his instantaneous death. 3. The only contention advanced by Mr. Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned Counsel for the Appellants-claimants is that Tribunal has not made Respondent No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. jointly and severally liable along with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Counsel further submitted that as the trailer is a part of the tractor, as held by this Court in some of its judgments, Respondent No. 3 is liable. 4. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan 2007 ACJ 1909 it was held that the insurance company is not liable for the death or injuries caused to the labourers travelling in the trailers. This has been reiterated in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Serjerao 2008 ACJ 254 5. A perusal of the policy shows that premium has been paid only for driver of the tractor. As the premium does not cover the labourers, Respondent No. 3, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased, who was, allegedly, a labourer travelling in the trailer. 6. Though the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate, having regard to the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, I am of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, valid and reasonable. 7. For the above-mentioned reasons, the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.