C R MUNIRATHANAM REDDI Vs. KRISHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the owner of the tractor, bearing No. APC 9147, and its trailer, bearing No. 8909, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, granting compensation of Rs. 24,950 to the claimant who was injured in an accident on 17/09/1984, involving the tractor and its trailer.

(2.) The claimant filed O.P. No. 100 of 1985, under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", seeking an award for Rs. 50,000 towards compensation against the owner of the vehicle, Munirathnam Reddy, the appellant herein and also against the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the vehicle was insured. She also filed a separate petition O.P. No. 101 as 1985, under section 92A of the Act seeking a compensation of Rs. 7,500.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that while she along with her mother-in-law were going from Thenabanda to Chittoor on 17/09/1984, for purchasing provisions, the tractor together with its trailer came behind them with a load of gravel and the driver of the tractor persuaded them to take a free lift up to Chittoor. The driver drove the tractor rashly and negligently and entered into an invalid lane in Chittoor without reducing the speed while taking a turn in the said street, as a result of which, she fell down and the wheel of the tractor ran over her right leg causing bleeding crush injury resulting in amputation of her leg. The owner, the appellant herein, filed a written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver and contending that the claimant was an unauthorized passenger as the driver was not authorised to carry passengers in the tractor and as the driver acted beyond the scope of his employment he is not liable to pay the compensation even though the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The owner has also filed an additional written statement after the trial has commenced taking a new plea that the claimant was travelling in the tractor as owner of the gravel for the purpose of selling the same at Chittoor or alternatively was travelling in the capacity of the representative of the stock and as such the compensation is payable by the insurance company. The insurance company filed written statements opposing the petitions contending that it is not liable as the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, that the tractor was insured for the purpose of agriculture and does not cover passengers and in any even as the claimant was a gratuitous passenger, it is not liable and also filed the insurance policy, exhibit B-3 in support of its plea.