ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. J KOTIRATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals by the Insurance Company arise out of the common onders and decrees dated 22-10-1994 in three batches of petitions i.e., (1) O.r.Nos.10/93, 11/93, 12/93 and 14/93; (2) O.P.Nos. 13/93 and 65/93; and (3) O.P.Nos. 15/93 and 16/93 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.10/93, 12/93, 11/93 and' 14/93 respectively are filed by the same claimants. O.P.No. 10/93 is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') and O.P.Nos. 12/93 is filed u/s 140 of the Act for the death of Seenu, s/o claimant No. 1 in the above O.Ps. O.P.Nos. 11/93 and 14/93 are filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act by the husband of the first respondent herein and father of respondents 2 and 3 herein. C.M.A. Nos. 33/95 and 37/95 arise out of O.P.Nos. 13/93 and 65/93 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. 35/95 and 36/95 which arise out of O.P.Nos. 15/93 and 16/93 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 cooli work to the respondents 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 travelled 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 first respondent is the driver and the second respondent is the owner of the tractor. The tractor is insured with the third respondent-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 the 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.