UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an award made by the Tribunal in O.P. No. 113 of 1989 dated 5.12.1994 wherein the Tribunal on appreciation of the medical evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000 towards injuries sustained. The insurance company preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal ought not to have imposed liability on the insurance company in view of the fact that the injured was travelling as unauthorised passenger in goods vehicle, i.e., tractor and trailer. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 4.6.1987 the petitioner and some others were travelling in tractor and trailer bearing Nos. ADC 9286 and ATC 686 belonging to the respondent No. 1 and at about 3.00 a.m. when the tractor was proceeding on M.B.T. Road, the driver of the tractor drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed due to which the tractor went off the road and hit a culvert and the petitioner and some others received injuries. A case was registered against the respondent No. 1 and the driver of the tractor in question was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 900. The injured at the time of accident was 37 years old. The injured was admitted in Government Hospital, Bangarupalem and thereafter shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor and was treated as in-patient for 3 days. Thereafter, she was admitted in C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and she stated that she suffered permanent disfiguration at her early age due to the injuries sustained and that she sustained mental pain and agony and that the doctor advised her to undergo plastic surgery and she approximately incurred Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 15,000 for the same. She claimed a total compensation of Rs. 75,000.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition particularly the age and occupation of the injured and it is further stated that the petitioner and 30 others were travelling in tractor and trailer for attending a marriage and that the policy alleged to have been issued does not cover the passengers travelling in the tractor-cum-trailer and that the vehicle in question is not expected to carry any passengers as per the policy and also as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, it is contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues.

(3.) With regard to the first issue whether the accident resulted due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor-cum-trailer, the Tribunal believed the version of PWs 1 and 2. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. Believing the version of PWs 1 and 2 the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor-cum-trailer and accordingly decided the issue in favour of claimants.