ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JANARASUPALLI KOTIRATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals by the insurance company arise out of the common orders and decrees dated 22.10.1994 in three batches of petitions, i.e., (1) O.P. Nos, 10, 11, 12 and 14 of 1993; (2) O.P. Nos. 13 and 65 of 1993; and (3) O.P. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993 on the file of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar. As the question of law involved in all these appeals is one and the same, I propose to dispose them of by this common judgment.

(2.) C.M.A. Nos. 30, 32, 31 and 34 of 1995 which arise out of O.P. Nos. 10, 12, 11 and 14 of 1993 respectively are filed by the same claimants. O.P. No. 10 of 1993 is filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') and O.P. No. 12 of 1993 is filed under section 140 of the Act for the death of Sreenu s/o claimant No. 1 in the above O.Ps. O.P. Nos. 11 and 14 of 1993 are filed under sections 166 and 140 of the Act (Sic.) the husband of the respondent No. 1 herein and father of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. C.M.A. Nos. 33 and 37 of 1995 arise out of O.P. Nos. 13 and 65 of 1993 filed under sections 166 and 140 of the Act, by the wife and two sons and a daughter, for the death of Subba Rao. Similarly, C.M.A. Nos. 35 and 36 of 1995 which arise out of O.P. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1993 filed under sections 166 and 140 of the Act respectively by the husband and daughter for the death of Marthamma, w/o respondent No. 1 herein.

(3.) The facts leading to the filing of the O.Ps. are as follows: On 14.12.1991 the deceased Janarasupalli Veeraiah and his son Sreenu along with Subba Rao and Marthamma went for coolie work to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in all the O.Ps. to cut the tobacco in the fields. After cutting the tobacco, they loaded the same in the trailer bearing registration No. AP TV 739 which was attached to tractor bearing No. AP 15 T 8685. The deceased were travelling in the same tractor-cum-trailer for the purpose of unloading and processing the tobacco in the house of R-1 and R-2. The respondent No. 1 is the driver and the respondent No. 2 is the owner of the tractor. The tractor is insured with the respondent No. 3 insurance company. While proceeding to the house around 11 a.m. the driver drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner through the fields. Due to that the trailer came into contact with live electrical line and the deceased died on the spot. Thus, the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor. The legal representatives of the deceased filed the above O.Ps. claiming compensation both under sections 166 and 140 of the Act.