LAXMANDAS Vs. RAJU THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the claimants appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 5.2.2000 passed by IV Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 55/99. In this appeal claimants have prayed for enhancement of compensation as well as setting aside the finding of exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground that the driver was not having valid driving licence.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the deceased Lakhandas aged about 20 years is educated upto 10th Class and he was engaged as agricultural labour. On 29.3.1999, he was working on the tractor of respondent No. 2 Veersingh and was going for agricultural work. He was sitting at the side of the driver of the tractor No. MP 04-LA-1807. A crusher was also attached with the tractor. One Raju Thakur was driving the said tractor. It is stated that the driver of the tractor was driving the tractor rashly and negligently and because of that he fell down from the tractor. He sustained injuries and ultimately died. Report of the incident was lodged to the police station and thereafter claimants those who are the parents father and mother of the deceased have filed petition for compensation. Tribunal found that the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and because of that negligence the deceased died. The claimants are entitled for compensation. It was disputed on behalf of the Insurance Company that the Insurance Company is not liable on two grounds: firstly that as per the Act liability only driver was allowed to drive the tractor and for the other person there is no liability of the Insurance Company of the tractor, and secondly the driver was having only learning licence and he was not having licence to drive the tractor. Tribunal on placing reliance on the Single Bench decision in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Rainiki Bai [1998 (I) MPJR 79] found that under the Act liability on the principle of Workmen Compensation Act, the Insurance Company is liable but held that since the driver was not having driving licence, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability and held the owner and driver liable for payment of compensation. Tribunal also assessed the total income of the deceased as Rs. 1,200/- per month and assessed the dependency as Rs. 300/- per month and applied the multiplier of 16 and awarded compensation of Rs. 64,600/-, against which the claimants have filed this appeal.

(3.) IN reply Shri R.V. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability and further submitted that under Order 41 Rule 22 and 33 CPC the Insurance Company without filing the cross objection can challenge the finding. His submission is that as per the policy only one driver was permitted on the tractor and no other passenger or labour was permitted to travel. Therefore, on this ground also Insurance Company is not liable and Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company.