NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. T PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the award in OP No.551 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur, dated 31.8.2005.

(2.) Talari Sivanna went by Tractor-trailer No.AP02-C-4275 - 4276 on 20.2.2000 at about 7 p.m. and when the vehicle turned turtle near Marrimekalapalli Village due to rash and negligent driving, Sivanna sustained severe injuries and died on 1.4.2000 while undergoing treatment at a private hospital at Bangalore. At the age of 45 years, he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month from tamarind business, which he was entirely contributing to his wife, two minor daughters and mother who claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer. The police, Kambadur registered Crime No.8 of 2000 against the tractor driver.

(3.) The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting Ex.A1 First Information Report and the eyewitness account of PW2 to conclude that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. THE Tribunal referred to the tamarind being plucked from tamarind tope and being transported in the vehicle in which Sivanna was travelling as the owner of the goods as per the claim of the claimants, which was denied by the insurer. THE Tribunal noted that RW1 admitted that five hamalies were permitted to travel in the tractor as per the insurance policy and PW2 deposed that he went as a coolie to pluck tamarind. In the absence of any evidence to show that Sivanna engaged the tractor along with PW2 for transporting tamarind for business purpose, the deceased was also presumed to have plucked tamarind as a coolie on that day, for which purpose he was travelling in the tractor. THE Tribunal referred to the precedents relied on by the insurer and distinguished them stating that the deceased travelled as a coolie only at the time of the accident though there was a load of tamarind in the vehicle and hence, there was no violation of the conditions of the policy. THE Tribunal considered the deceased to be aged 35 years as per the inquest and post-mortem reports and taking his income as Rs. 1,500/- per month, it assessed the compensation on that basis by applying the multiplier of 17 and taking two-thirds of such income into account leaving the other one-third towards the expenses of the deceased. THE Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards transport and funeral expenses and the amount of Rs.2,29,000/- so arrived at was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by the claimants and interest at 7.5 per cent per annum was awarded by the Tribunal. THE Tribunal directed apportionment and disbursement of the compensation among the claimants.