Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1861 (RAJ)

National Insurance Company Limited v. Ganga

2017-08-18

ARUN BHANSALI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.03.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulabpura, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,62,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 09.01.2014. 2. The application for compensation was filed by wife and parents of one Ghanshyam, inter alia, with the averments that the deceased was travelling on Tractor No. RJ-06-RB-2886 to Gangapur, when the same was being driven rashly and negligently by its Driver Raghunath, resulting in Ghanshyam falling down and suffering grievous injuries from the said Tractor, to which, he succumbed. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,18,000/- was claimed. 3. The application was contested by the owner, driver and the appellant-Insurance Company. It was claimed by the owner and driver that the liability, if any, was that of the Insurance Company as the vehicle was insured. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company contested its liability by claiming that as the deceased was travelling as passenger on the said Tractor, the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of compensation. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Driver of the Tractor, resulting in, the deceased suffering injuries, to which, he succumbed. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the Tractor as a labourer and that the policy issued by the Insurance Company had covered the risk of such labourer and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable for making payment of compensation. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the income based on the minimum wages at Rs. 166/- per day and after deducting ?rd towards personal expenses, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,17,120/- towards loss of income and further amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- was awarded towards non-pecuniary damages and in all, a sum of Rs. 8,62,100/- along with interest as noticed hereinbefore was awarded. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the Tractor as labourer and as he was travelling on the Tractor as a labourer, the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of compensation. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the Tractor as labourer and as he was travelling on the Tractor as a labourer, the Insurance Company was liable to make payment of compensation. It was submitted that the Insurance Company had charged premium for the driver of the Tractor only and the liability of the labourer was not covered by the policy and on that count, the award impugned deserves to be set aside. Further submissions were made that the award of interest @ 9% per annum is excessive and, therefore, the same requires interference by this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants on caveat submitted that the award impugned does not call for any interfere as the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant facts as well as the oral and documentary evidence. Further submissions were made that the Insurance Company had charged premium for 'an Employee' and, therefore, the same cannot be confined to the driver of the Tractor and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard has no basis. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on records well as documents placed for perusal by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 9. The Tribunal based on the uncontroverted evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the Tractor as a labourer at the time of accident. The said finding is based on the statement of the witnesses, who were cross-examined and the said fact about the deceased travelling on the Tractor as labourer has been firmly established and, therefore, the submissions made in this regard has no basis. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, a bare look at the policy (Ex.-9) reveals that the Tractor and Trailer both were insured and premium regarding the Tractor as well as the Trailer were separately charged towards own damage as well as liability by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company also charged Rs. 50/- towards 'WC to employee-1'. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the said premium of Rs. The Insurance Company also charged Rs. 50/- towards 'WC to employee-1'. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the said premium of Rs. 50/- was charged is confined to the driver of the Tractor only, has apparently no basis specially in view of the fact that the Insurance Company had charged premium for (insured) both the Tractor as well as the Trailer. The obvious reasons for indicating 'WC to employee-1' is that the same would cover either the driver of the Tractor and/or the labourer, who may be travelling for loading/unloading of goods in/from the Trailer. 10. In view of the above, wherein the Insurance Company had charged premium for 'an Employee', there is no reason to confine the same to driver only and, therefore, it is held that as the deceased was travelling as labourer on the Tractor, the Insurance Company would be liable for making payment of compensation. Therefore, the submissions made seeking to disown the liability by the appellant-Insurance Company also has no basis. 11. So far as the submissions made regarding the rate of interest is concerned, the award of interest @ 9% per annum cannot be said to be so excessive so as to require any interference in the present appeal. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.