NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LOGANAYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations contained in the claim petition are as follows: THE deceased Murugan was a contractor dealing with stones for building and construction. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. TN 29-Y 3200 and TN 29-Y 4206 respectively. On 8/11/2001 the respondent No. 1 loaded stones in the trailer and the deceased was travelling in the trailer as contractor. It was driven by one Seenivasan and due to his negligent driving, the vehicle capsized due to which Murugan fell down and by fall of stones over him, he died at the spot. THE deceased was contractor by profession and he was supplying building materials on contract basis. He was also having agricultural land and houses and was also building houses on contract basis and he was earning not less than Rs. 10,000 per month and spending about Rs. 7,000 on his family. He was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are his wife and minor son and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his parents. Hence a sum of Rs. 15,00,000 is prayed for as compensation.

(2.) IN the counter filed by respondent No. 2, the following facts are stated: The tractor and trailer were insured with the respondent No. 2 for the period from 10.11.2000 to 9.11.2001. The deceased was travelling in the tractor and trailer as an unauthorised passenger in violation of policy conditions. Tractor and trailer are insured for agricultural purposes only. But they were used for commercial purpose by carrying stones to others. Hence, the respondent No. 2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No. 1. The avocation and income of the deceased as mentioned in the petition are denied. The respondents are not liable to pay compensation. The claimants have to move for proper remedy only under Workmen's Compensation Act. The driver of the tractor is also not having valid licence. The compensation claimed is excessive. The petitioners cannot claim more than 9 per cent of interest as per law. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) ARGUING on the other side of the coin, Mr. D. Shivakumaran, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that there is ample evidence on record to show that the tractor and trailer were used for agricultural purposes as transpired from the oral evidence and under law the deceased, whatever be his capacity, was also covered by the contract and the award passed by the Tribunal is in order.