AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Radhakrishna Rao, J.—The claim has been made on account of the death of the son of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner in the O.P.No. 340/87. The accident that occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle is undisputed. An amount of Rs. 34,000/- and odd has been awarded as compensation. The Insurance company filed the present appeal.
The contention that has been raised by the Insurance Company is that the vehicle has to be used for carrying goods or for agricultural purpose but the vehicle involved in the accident is used for sprinkling water purpose which is prohibited u/s 96 of the Statute. Under the circumstances, this court feels that the liability can be fixed jointly on the Insurance Corporation as well as the owner of the vehicle but the entire liability cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company. Therefore, taking into account Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant decision of this court, this court fixes liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.l5,000/-and the remaining amount of compensation awarded, on the owner of the vehicles, i.e., owner of the tractor and trailor. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. Nor order as to costs.