LAXMIBAI Vs. SHANTAPPA P. KAMAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE present appeals are filed in respect of the same judgment and award. The appeal in MFA 12587/2007 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation that is awarded and the connected appeal in MFA 13450/2006 is filed questioning the liability fastened on the Insurance Company in respect of payment of compensation.

(3.) ADDRESSING the contention on behalf of the insurer, the learned Counsel for the appellant - insurer in MFA 13450/2006 would firstly point out that the policy of insurance that was issued was a Farmers Package Insurance Policy. In the said insurance policy, the coverage of the tractor, is only on behalf of the owner and that it shall be used only for the purpose of agriculture by the owner. The question of hiring out the tractor to third -parties or permitting workmen to be carried on a tractor was impermissible. It is evident from the record that there was a report lodged with the jurisdictional Police of the accident and the complainant was none other than the son of the deceased and who was also said to be travelling on the trailer at the time of the accident, he has categorically stated that the vehicle had been taken on lease by his father to carry fertilizer to his field. This would clearly indicate that it was not being used for his own purpose by the insured, but had been let on hire. Further, the tractor is treated as a non -transport vehicle and there is no provision for carrying any person on the trailer. It was to be used only for agricultural purposes. Hence, the question of carrying passengers or persons on the trailer did not arise. Further it is pointed out that the deceased was not an agricultural labourer and was not employed by the insured nor was allowed to travel on the tractor trailer as a passenger or the owner of goods, accompanying the goods. The tractor trailer is not a goods carriage vehicle and it was to be used for the purpose of agricultural operations. There is no seating capacity which would on the face of it indicate that the trailer could not carry any passengers in the cargo compartment nor could it be said that the deceased was a third -party, on whose death, a claim could be raised by his legal representatives for compensation. The Tribunal merely having proceeded on the basis that the tractor was being used for agricultural operations at the time of the accident and that it was covered under an insurance policy by itself, would not be sufficient to attract the liability of the insurance company unless it was being used for agricultural operations of the insured.