UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. CHANDRAKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the insurance company - original opponent No.2, challenging the Judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.121 of 2003, by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed on 18-08-2005, thereby partly allowing the claim filed by the present respondents No.1 to 6 and holding the appellant company liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with original opponent No.1 i. e. present respondent No.7.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to the petition are that, the original claimants are the legal heirs of one Babasaheb Dagdu Mane. Babasaheb had two wives, who are claimants No.1 and 2. Claimants No.3 and 4 are the children of Babasaheb and claimant No.2, and claimant No.5 and 6 are the parents of Babasaheb. Babasaheb was aged 42. He was an agriculturist, labour and doing business in shoes and chappals. He was serving as labour with Lok Mangal Sugar Factory, Solapur. His earning was around Rs.4000/- per month. He had gone to village Kalman for sugarcane cutting on 30- 12-2002 in his capacity as labour of Lok Mangal Sugar Factory. After the sugarcane was cut, it was being transported from tractor bearing No.MH-23/ V-2726 with two attached trolleys bearing No.MH-23/D-4718 and MH-23/C-2755. Babasaheb along with some other persons had filled the trolleys and along with their belongings they were travelling from the trolleys. He was occupying the trolley No.MH-23/C-2755. When the tractor was on Kalman - Gavadi Darphal road, at that time the driver of the tractor Ravindra Khedkar drove the same in rash and negligent manner. He was talking to the people who were travelling from the trolley and the tractor was in high speed. He lost the control and when he found that the tractor was going into the ditch, he applied sudden breaks, as a result of which the trolley bearing No.MH-23/C-2755 turned turtle. Babasaheb and other persons fell down. They were virtually trapped in the sugarcane and other household articles. He was taken to General Hospital, Solapur for treatment, however he succumbed to the injuries. The accident was reported to the police and the driver has been prosecuted. The said accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part of the tractor driver. The said tractor was owned by opponent No.1 and it was duly insured on the date of the accident with opponent No.2. The claimants had therefore claimed compensation of Rs.4 lakh together with interest.

(3.) The said claim was resisted by both the opponents by filing written statement at Exhibits 23 and 20 respectively. The insurance company has denied age, occupation, income, the manner in which the accident took place etc.; whereas opponent No.1 has admitted age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is denied by opponent No.1 that, due to the negligence and rashness on the part of his driver, the accident had taken place. Again it is reiterated that, he has insured his tractor with opponent No.2. The insurance company has denied its liability though it is admitted that the tractor was insured with it on the date of accident. Insurance of the trolleys is denied. Statutory defences have been taken stating that, the deceased was not the authorized labour working with opponent No.1 and, therefore, his risk was not at all covered under the policy. It is also stated that, the driver of the tractor was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor on the alleged date and time of accident. The deceased will not come within the definition of third party. No separate premium for labour was paid or recovered under the policy and, therefore, the company cannot be held responsible either jointly or severally to pay the compensation. It has been also contended that, deceased being the labour who said to have died during the course of employment, the claimants ought to have filed application for compensation under Workmen Compensation Act . The claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable.