AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar
This appeal by the insurance company who had provided cover to the owner of a tractor-trailer and who had collected total premium of Rs. 1,475/- i.e., towards third party basic Rs. 800/- towards additional premium for trailor Rs. 550/-, towards compulsory p.a. to owner/driver - Rs. 100/-, towards workmen''s compensation, covering the employee Rs. 25/-.
A coolie who was travelling in the tractor having succumbed to certain injuries due to the accident involving the tractor, being the sole supporter of his dependent parents for their sustenance, the parents of the deceased filed MVC. No. 325 of 2009 claiming compensation.
The claim petition was resisted by the respondents - owner and insurer of the tractor.
The Tribunal framed the following issues:
Whether the petitioners prove that on 20.9.2009 at about 2.30 P.M., infront of Baladota Office, Dam road at Hospet Siddappa was died, in a Mow vehicle accident i.e., on account of rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No KA-37/TA-1518 and Trally No.KA-37/T-3501 by the respondent No. 1?
Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for the Compensation? From who,, to what extent?
What Order?
The first two issues having been answered in the affirmative: the Tribunal proceeded to quantify the compensation payable to the parents of the deceased to be in a total sum of Rs. 2,83,000/- reading as under:
1
Loss of Dependency
Rs. 2,52,000
2
Loss of Estate
Rs. 20,000
3
Loss of love and affection
Rs. 6,000
4
Funeral expenses.
Rs. 5,000
Total
Rs. 2,83,000
and was directed to be paid with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit and part of it was directed to be kept in a term deposit in a Nationalized Bank as per the Award passed by the Tribunal.
It is aggrieved by this order and award, the present appeal by the insurer.
Mr. Jainor, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submits that the person who sustained injuries and died, admittedly was travelling on the mudguard of the wheel of the tractor and therefore in terms of the policy, the insurer was not liable to reimburse the liability of the insured and that the person was in a position of unauthorized passenger etc.,.
A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal indicates that the claim petition had been contested by the driver of the tractor also. If so, the insurer does not have separate locus to file an appeal of this nature when the insured - the tortfeasor had not chosen to file the appeal.
Be that as it may, I find that the grounds urged by the insurer is a hyper technical ground to wriggle out of the liability which the insurer is otherwise to meet as it is not in dispute that the insured has to pay the amount to the parents of the deceased and also a look at the pattern of the premium collected indicates that the policy did cover extra person in the form of a coolie by collecting premium of Rs. 25/- and the owner-cum-driver also had been covered by collecting additional premium of Rs. 100/-, yet another additional premium of Rs. 550/- had been collected for the policy independently.
Viewed from any angle, both liabilities are covered by the appellant - insurance company. If the deceased person was otherwise covered as an employee, I do not think it is necessary to permit the insurer to take up a hyper technical plea of treating the deceased as an unauthorized passenger and therefore to deprive the poor third party claimants - parents of the deceased of the proper compensation. If the appellant - insurance company should be exonerated of its liability, the position will be that the claimants will be left high and dry as the owner will never be able to compensate the claimants. The whole idea is to ensure that their claims are not defeated and therefore I do not find any justification to interfere in this appeal.
This appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal itself, Misc. Cvl. 100372 of 2011 for stay is dismissed.
13 The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith and the balance amount to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks. Thereafter, the Tribunal is directed to disburse the amount in favour of the claimants in terms of the Award of the Tribunal.