KRUSHNA RAKASA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimants-appellants, is directed against the judgment/award dated 20.8.2009, passed by the 4 th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jharsuguda, in MAC No.26 of 2009, awarding an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 13.3.2009 and directing the owner of the vehicle (respondent no.1) to pay the same. Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that as the offending vehicle, i.e., tractor fitted with trolley is a goods carriage and has been insured as such, learned Tribunal erred in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that as the insurance policy issued in respect of the tractor-trolley covers the risk of the driver and helper/labourer, working in the tractor and the deceased was admittedly working as a helper/labourer in the said tractor-trolley, the insurance policy did cover the risk of the deceased-helper and the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount awarded.

(2.) Learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh Vrs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd, 2003 ACJ 1550, in support of his contention that Section 147(1)(b) first proviso of the M.V.Act, 1988, provides insurance coverage to the workman or labourer carried in goods carriage vehicle. In this regard, learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of this Court in The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Minka Munda & Others,2010 109 CLT 63.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-respondent no.2 while supporting the impugned award submits that as the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the offending tractor-trolley, the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle does not cover the liability of such a person. In this regard, it is submitted that as the seating capacity of the tractor is only one, i.e. driver, any other person carried in the tractor, even as a labourer, is not covered under the policy, unless extra premium is paid for covering the risk of such a labourer. It is further submitted that the assessment of the compensation amount is not proper and justified.On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the owner of the offending tractor-trolley appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement admitting the employment of the deceased Arjun Rakasa as a labourer in the said tractor-trolley and that he died in an accident on 5.6.2008, by falling down from the tractor-trolley, while he was travelling in the same. The owner further stated in his written statement that as the tractor-trolley was covered under a valid policy of insurance, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount.