NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. K NAGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by respondent No. 3 - The New India Assurance Company Limited in O.P.Nos. 108 and 109 of 1986 challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari, Kakinada, dt. 19-12-1989 in regard to mulcting it with the liability to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants in death claim cases filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) One Bulli Satyam and Subba Rao died in a Motor Vehicle accident which occurred on 2-3-1985 at about 9 a.m. while they were travelling in a Tractor and trailer bearing No. 4986 and A.T.P.No. 4995. It is found by the Tribunal that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, the driver and the vehicles belonged to respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No.3 and while awarding Rs. 45,000/- in O.P.No. 108/86 and Rs. 57,000/- in O.P.No. 109/86, the liability to satisfy the award was jointly and severally placed on all the respondents including respondent No. 3, the appellant. In these two appeals, only that part of the award placing the liability on respondent No. 3, the Insurer, is challenged. In the light of the grounds of appeal which are generally raised by the appellant, Mr. Kota Subba Rao, the learned advocate for the appellant has formulated the contentions on such grounds as hereunder: (1) The appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal regarding the reason for the deceased persons to travel in the vehicle is wrong leading to wrong inference that they were travelling in the course of the employment under respondent No. 2: (2) the Tribunal was wrong in placing the liability on respondent No.3 to satisfy the award in spite of the alternative finding that the deceased was travelling in the vehicles as gratuitous passengers; (3) the award of the Tribunal is opposed to settled law that there is no liability on the part of the Insurer where the terms of the policy are violated and in particular when the driver was carrying the gratuitous passengers regarding which there was no coverage of the Insurance ; (4) the award of the Tribunal is illegal and therefore liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Ramachandra Rao while repelling the above contentions has pointed out that the finding of facts of the Tribunal is based upon the evidence supported by reasons and cannot be interfered with in an appeal unless for strong reasons which are not established, that even assuming that the deceased were travelling in the vehicles as the employees of respondent No. 2 as per the evidence and they were not the gratuitous passengers, the driver of the lorry who allowed them to travel in the vehicles caused the accident in the course of the employment and therefore the owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver and when there is no evidence to show that it was the owner of the vehicle who committed the breach of the terms of the policy, there was no reason to exonerate the Insurer from the liability to pay the compensation. It is also his contention that there is no proof of wilful breach of the conditions of the policy by the owner of the vehicle, neither from the plea nor from the proof, and therefore the Tribunal was justified in placing the liability on the Insurer-appellant. Mr. Ramchander Rao has also concluded in his contentions that the Insurer in this case failed to discharge the burden to prove the breach of conditions of the policy due to its unsatisfactory and unreliable evidence as pointed out by the Tribunal. As a whole, it is contended by him that the award should be maintained as it is. Thus, both the facts and law relating to such controversies warrant consideration in these appeals.