NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KESHORAM PACHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dtd. 9/2/2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') in O.P.No.643 of 2010.

(2.) Heard arguments of Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company, Sri G.Ram Mohan Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants and Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

(3.) The following facts are required to be noticed: Sri Uddal Kesharam Pache was a welding worker aged 22 years. On 31/8/2010 at about 6:00 A.M. he was sleeping by the side of the road in S.C. Colony, Kallur Village of Yellanur Mandal. At that time an excavator bearing registration No.XXX-0001 was driven by its driver rashly or negligently and it ran over the legs of him causing serious injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Tadipatri and from there to Government General Hospital, Anantapur where he succumbed to injuries and died at 9:00 A.M. on the same day. His parents and younger brother filed O.P.No.643 of 2010 under Ss. 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000.00. The owner of the offending excavator was made as respondent No.1. The National Insurance Company Limited which had issued an insurance policy was made as respondent No.2. The claim was preferred before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Anantapur at Gooty. The owner of the offending excavator did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter and denied the allegations and principally contended that the excavator is a miscellaneous and special type of vehicle and it is a chain mounted vehicle and does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle as provided in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, the Claims Tribunal did not hold jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and prayed for dismissal of the claim.