RATHNA BAI, W/O MANJAPPA @ MANJOJI RAO, SRI. M. DINESH, S/O MANJAPPA @ MANJOJI RAO, AND SRI. M. MOHANA, S/O MANJAPPA @ MANJOJI RAO Vs. SRI BASAVARAJAPPA, S/O A. HIGUNDA RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN regard to accident dated 20.12.1998, two claim applications are filed. One by the injured Rangappa, other by the legal representatives of Manjappa. Both the cases are decided by the impugned order. The insurance Company has preferred appeals in MFA.Nos.2099/2008 and 2190/2008 The Insurance Company has contended that it is not liable to pay compensation so it has challenged the award whereas, the claimants seek enhancement of compensation. So, heard all the cases at a stretch.

(2.) THE case of the claimants is Rangappa, the injured and Manjappa, the deceased were moving in a trailer attached to a tractor bearing registration No. CTS 9438 -9439 along with Umesh and Govindappa. Then the driver of the tractor has driven the tractor rashly and negligently, caused the accident and Manjappa succumbed to the injuries. Rangappa received injuries in the accident. So, the claimants seek for compensation. The owner of the Insurance Company has filed objections, admits that he is the owner of the tractor trailer, contend that the driver had a valid Driving licence (in para 3 of the objections) and further contend that the liability if any is upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation, as on the said date, the vehicle was insured with respondent, no.3.

(3.) THE learned Advocate Shri A.K. Bhat for the Insurance Company submits it is the case of the claimants that they went to pluck the arecanut. Arecanuts were being plucked as usual on contract basis in this process of regular contract, the deceased and the claimant Rangappa were moving in the trailer along with three persons. So it do not fall within the ambit of during the course of employment. The vehicle being not used for the work of the owner of the tractor vehicle being used to carry the arecanut of a person who has taken the contract of harvesting the crop, travel by the deceased and the claimants fall as passengers for hire or reward and not coolies or employees of the owner. The learned Advocate invites the attention of the Court to the evidence of Rangappa, so he contends that the case would not tall within the category of owner of the goods travelling along with goods, which is covered under Section );">147 of the Motor Vehicles Act so seeks for exonerating the Company. Secondly, contend that the driver having failed to produce the valid driving licence, the vehicle being used for transportation of goods, the driver should have had a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. He places reliance on the ruling of this Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and Others, AIR 2006 SC 3440 wherein this Court was considering the requirements of a valid commercial driving licence.