IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1647 of 2007 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant AND K. SArojamma & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1647 of 2007 ORDER: The Appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the award, dated 04.10.2006, in O.P.No.160 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the first respondent was awarded a compensation of Rs.1,500/- out of the claim of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The appellant is the second respondent before the Tribunal. The first respondent herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal. The second respondent herein is the first respondent/driver and owner of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920. 3. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimant is the injured. She claimed a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 30.10.2004. 5. The case of the claimant is that the first respondent, who is the holder of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920, engaged the claimant and others as coolies to harvest and transport groundnut from his fields to their Village Diguvapalli. While they were returning from the fields to their village in the tractor and trailer, the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tractor and trailer turned turtle and the claimant sustained injuries. The claimant was shifted to Community Health Care Centre, A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Tadipatri for treatment and she had spent huge amount towards treatment. It is also the case of the claimant that she was aged about 48 years and that she was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing agricultural coolie work. Muchukota Police Station registered a criminal case in Crime No.69 of 2004 against the first respondent/owner and driver of the tractor and trailer. 6. The first respondent/owner and driver of the tractor and trailer remained ex parte. The second respondent/insurance company contested the case and denied the material averments made by the claimant. 7. The second respondent/insurance company resisted the claim by filing counter mainly on the ground that the claimant was an unauthorized passenger and, therefore, her risk is not covered as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the first respondent/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy while allowing the passengers to travel in the tractor and trailer. The first respondent/driver and owner of the tractor and trailer does not possess a valid driving licence. Hence, the second respondent/insurance company desired the Civil Revision Petition to be dismissed. 8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 30.10.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, one T. Imtiyaz Ahammed was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 10. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. 11. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal, considering Ex.A-2- Wound Certificate which showed that the claimant sustained one simple injury, awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- as compensation. 12. On the point whether the first respondent/insured has violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy, the Tribunal held that Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy prohibited the use of vehicle for carriage of passengers for hire and reward and that the claimant was not a passenger carried for hire and reward. Therefore, the second respondent/insurance company has to indemnify the injured. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 13. The only contention of Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since the first respondent/insured has not paid any additional premium covering the risk of the coolies, the second respondent/insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claimant/injured and that the first respondent/insured has violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy by engaging passengers to travel in the trailer attached to the tractor. 14. The only point that is left for consideration is whether fastening of liability on the second respondent/insurance company is justified. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ONGOLE VS. TUMU GURAVA REDDY AND OTHERS[1], wherein it is observed that the tractor intended to be used for agriculture purpose is covered by insurance and when coolies were transported with the tractor to work in the field of the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be treated as carrying the passengers for hire or reward and, therefore, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in such situation. 16. The specific case of the claimant is that the first respondent engaged her to harvest and transport groundnut crop in his fields. The claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, specifically deposed that the first respondent engaged her and other coolies to harvest and transport the groundnut crop from his fields to their Village Diguvapalli and that while they were returning from the fields to their village Diguvapalli in the trailer attached to the tractor belonging to the first respondent, the accident occurred. In the cross-examination, she categorically deposed that on that day, they worked in the fields of the first respondent. She denied the suggestion that 30 persons were travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident. She has also denied the suggestion that they were travelling as unauthorized passengers in the tractor and trailer. It has to be seen that no suggestion was given to P.W.1 that she was being carried for hire or reward. 17. R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the second respondent/insurance company, deposed that the claimant and others were engaged for plucking groundnut crop in the fields. His only contention is that the first respondent has not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of passengers. 18. Ex.B-1-copy of the Insurance policy limitations have been specifically provided as follows: “The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: (a)Organised racing/(b)Pace making/(c)Reliability Trials/(d)Speed Testing/(e)Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disable Mechanically propelled vehicle/(f)use for carriage of passengers for hire or reward.” 19. Admittedly, the tractor and trailer was used for carrying the coolies to harvest the groundnut crop. Therefore, it cannot be said that those coolies were passengers being carried for hire and reward. Therefore, it is clear that the second respondent/insurance company cannot avoid its liability. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and, hence, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the award, dated 04.10.2006, in O.P.No.160 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 1st April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1647 of 2007 Date: 1st April, 2011 KL [1] 1998 (5) ALT 271