Shakuntala vs Chandrashekhar and Others

B. Manohar, J.—1. Appellant is the owner of the vehicle, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.07.2010 made in MVC No. 463/2009 passed by the Fast Track Court-I at Gulbarga fastening the liability on the owner to compensate the claimant, has filed this appeal.

The 1st respondent herein filed the claim petition contending that on 04.11.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. while the claimant was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing registration No. KA-32/T-4778-79 along with his agricultural product to the market, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor and trailer by its driver, it was capsized and the claimant sustained grievous injuries. He had taken treatment in the Government General Hospital, Chincholi. Thereafter, he took treatment in the Government Hospital at Gulbarga as an inpatient. He claimed that he had spent huge money for the treatment and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company filed the written statement.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Fast Track Court framed necessary issues.

The claimant in order to prove his case has examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P9. Dr. Ramakanth, who has treated the claimant was examined as P.W. 2. On behalf of the insurance company, an Administrative Officer was examined as R.W. 1 and insurance policy of the offending vehicle was marked as Ex. R1.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and oral and documentary evidence, the Fast Track Court held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer, the accident occurred and the claimant is entitled for the compensation. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained multiple abrasions over the right foot and contusion over the left lower part of the leg. The Fast Track Court taking into consideration the injuries sustained and the suffering undergone, awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. With regard to liability is concerned, since the claimant was allowed to travel in a tractor and trailer along with the grains bag load, thereby violated the conditions of the policy and that the tractor and trailer is not a commercial vehicle, the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the same, the owner has preferred this appeal.

Sri Ganesh Naik, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the claimant was travelling in a tractor and trailer with the agricultural product to the APMC yard. The tractor and trailer was not used for the commercial purposes. He was transporting his agricultural products along with the goods of the owner of the tractor and trailer, for which he has not paid hire charges. Hence, fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is contrary to law.

On the other hand, Sri Shivanand Patil, learned advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court contending that when the insurance policy has been issued to the tractor and trailer for agricultural purposes, that vehicle cannot be used for commercial purposes and transportation of goods. The Fast Track Court taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, fastened the liability on the owner of the vehicle. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Fast Track Court and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.

The record clearly discloses that on 04.11.2008, the 1st respondent herein boarded the tractor and trailer along with his agricultural produce to go to the market. Usually, in the villages, when an agriculturist transport his agricultural produce to the APMC market or to any other market, he also accommodate other agriculturists to transport their agricultural produce in his vehicle, for which he does not collect any hire charges and it cannot be said that the vehicle is being used for commercial venture. In the instant case, unfortunately on 04.11.2008, the tractor and trailer, which the claimant boarded along with his goods met with an accident and he sustained injuries. The tractor and trailer is covered by the insurance policy. The transportation of agricultural products grown by the agriculturist to the market in a tractor and trailer will not amount to using the vehicle for commercial purpose. Hence, the insurer has to compensate the claimant. The order passed by the Fast Track Court fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle is contrary to law. In fact, one of the persons travelling in the very same tractor and trailer had filed a claim petition under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. The Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation has awarded compensation. That order has been challenged by the United India Insurance Company in MFA No. 32323/2010. This Court dismissed the said appeal on 22.03.2013. Hence, fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimant is contrary to law.

With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained abrasion over the left foot and contusion over the left lower part of the leg. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Fast Track Court is just compensation. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 13.07.2010 passed in MVC No. 463/2009 by the Fast Track Court-I at Gulbarga is modified. The 2nd respondent-insurance company is directed to compensate the claimant.

The amount in deposit before this Court be refunded to the appellant.