LAWS(APH)-2000-2-29

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PONNAM LAXMIAH

Decided On February 08, 2000
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
PONNAM LAXMAIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two civil revision petitions and three civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the common order dated 30.12.1998 passed in Original Petition Nos. 645 to 648 and 651 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khamrnam. The appellant is the respondent No. 3 in all the above five original petitions.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the claimants are agricultural coolies and earning Rs. 35 per day. On 27.3.94 they were engaged by the owner of the tractor-trailer bearing No. AEK 8974 and 8975 for agricultural purpose. While the claimants were so travelling in the said tractor-trailer, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, and as a result of which the tractortrailer turned turtle and one of the agricultural coolies died and four others sustained injuries. The injured agricultural coolies and the legal heirs of the deceased filed the above five original petitions claiming compensation against the driver and owner of the tractor-trailer and also the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the tractortrailer was insured.

(3.) The appellant insurance company has not disputed the manner in which the accident occurred and also the injuries sustained by the claimants and also the death of an agricultural coolie in that accident, but it mainly disputed the claims that the agricultural coolies are not entitled for the compensation against the insurance policy covering the third party risk. It was contended by the insurance company before the court below that Exh. B-1 insurance policy is an Act policy and in the limitations as to use it was mentioned that the policy covers 'for agricultural use only' and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of any claim arising out of the use of motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with the limitations. The insurance company further contended that transporting of agricultural coolies in the tractortrailer cannot be said that the vehicle was used for agricultural purpose and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.