ANAND BAHADUR SINGH Vs. KAMTA PRASAD VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal has been preferred by the owner aggrieved by an award dated 27. 4. 2004 passed by Third additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Sidhi in Claim Case No. 14 of 2004.

(2.) CLAIMANT Kamta Prasad filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of amputation of right leg in an accident dated 9. 7. 1996 by the tiller owned by one anand Bahadur Singh, operated by Pawan kumar Singh and insured for agricultural operation. The claimant was working in his own field. He was called by Pawan Kumar singh. When Pawan Kumar Singh wanted to start the tiller, Kamta Prasad fell down, his right leg was entangled in the cultivator, it was badly crushed, ultimately it had to be amputated. He was operated upon in medical College, Banaras. He remained there till 11. 10. 1996, thus he has become incapacitated. Rs. 11,18,000 was claimed as compensation. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.

(3.) THE owner, in reply, denied the liability to make payment of compensation. The claimant used to work as a teacher in a non-government institution, he was not an agriculturist. The owner is an advocate, he is not having any tiller on which the claimant could have sat. There was no negligence on the part of Pawan Kumar singh as such he was not liable. The vehicle was not a tractor but was a power tiller having 12 hp diesel engine. There was no place to sit in the tiller. For ploughing the land one has to walk in the field. Pawan kumar Singh used to look after the power tiller. As a matter of fact the claimant without knowledge of Pawan Kumar Singh started the power tiller. He was not able to control it and accidentally his leg got entangled in the cultivator. Accident was the outcome of negligence of the claimant himself. No reply was preferred by Pawan Kumar singh. The insurer, in reply, also denied the facts and the liability to make the payment of compensation. Claimant himself jumped from the tractor that was the cause of accident. No permanent disability was incurred. There was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, hence claim petition be dismissed.