AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—On a Vankatash is deceased in M.V.C. No. 44/1996. Petitioners are the parents. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioners and directed the insurer of the Tractor-Trailer to pay compensation. The insurer is in appeal seeking avoidance of liability on the ground that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger in Tractor-Trailer.
The Tractor-Trailer was loaded with sugarcane. According to the petitioners, the deceased was travelling as a loader and he had to unload the sugarcane at the factory. The owner of the Tractor-Trailer in the avoidance states that the deceased is his nephew and not employed as a loader for the Tractor-Trailer.
The inquest report prepared by the 1.0. sometime immediately after the accident discloses that the deceased was travelling as a loader in the Tractor-Trailer. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of the owner and upheld the contention of the petitioner that deceased was a loader in the Tractor-Trailer.
The conduct or R.V.I appears to be strange. In the normal course of things, it is unnatural to expect the owner of the Tractor-Trailer to invite liability upon himself/ when in lay, conveniently the insurer could be made liable. The explanation given by the petitioners that on account of family bravls, to deny the benefit of compensation, R.V.I has taken such a strange and unnatural stand appears to be a tenable contention. the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is sound and proper.
Rule 2(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, defines agricultural Tractor as non-transport vehicle. In other words, if a Tractor-Trailer is specifically registered as an agricultural Tractor to be exclusively used only for agricultural operation, it would be a non-transport vehicle. Otherwise, it would be very much a goods vehicle and the provisions of Section 147(1} of the Motor vehicles Act would attract. the insurer is legally bound to issue a policy in terms of the Workmen''s Compensation Act if a Tractor- Trailer is a goods vehicle, as held by the Supreme Court reported in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma and Ors. AIR 2004 SCW 5116 at paragraph No. 17 as follows:
A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. the trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purpose, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and net for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the ''goods carriage'' as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani(Supra) and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment.
The insurer has not placed any evidence before the Court to show that it is an agricultural Tractor-Trailer and there is no coverage in respect of workman employed in connection with the Tractor-Trailer. In that view of the matter, the deceased being a loader travelling in the Tractor-Trailer at the time of accident, the claimants are entitled to compensation as per the terms of the W.C. Act.
The reckonable income is to be taken at Rs. 1,000/- and if it is multiplied by the relevant factor 221.37, it works out to Rs. 2,21,370/-. Therefore, compensation awarded at Rs. 2,22,000/- with 6% interest is to be confirmed. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted the Tribunal for disbursement.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.