HANUMANTHARAYA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (SCCH -15), Bangalore, ('Tribunal' for short) in MVC No.7535/2004. The appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on two counts. One is, seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and the other is for fixing the responsibility on respondent No.1 - Insurance Company for payment of compensation amount awarded.

(2.) THE appellant -claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case are that, on 18.10.2003 at about 8.30 a.m., the appellant was proceeding in a tractor bearing No.KA - 02/T -1905, wherein, he was engaged on a coolie work of loading and unloading, i.e., excavating the mud and carrying it to the farm house of the owner of the tractor and trailer. The driver of the tractor, drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which, the tractor turtled and the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient. He spent Rs.1,00,000/ - towards medicines, treatment and conveyance. Respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.1 is the insurer and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1 -Insurance Company by filing written statement contended that the vehicle in question was not used for agricultural purpose and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation. The trailer was not insured and only the tractor was insured with respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions. Hence, there was no liability on the part of respondent No.1 -Insurance Company to pay compensation. Respondent No.1 had also denied the averment that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000/ - per month and it was also denied that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor -trailer bearing No.KA -02 -T -1905. Respondent No.1 had further stated that the appellant was travelling in the tractor and trailer and he was not entitled for compensation. The compensation claimed by the appellant was exorbitant. The averments made with reference to the age, avocation and income of the appellant is also denied.