IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17..03..2009 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.M.A.No.1061 of 2003 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Attur ... Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1. Dhanapal 2. Palaniammal 3. G.K. Pandian ... Respondents/Petitioner 1 & 2 & 1st Respondent This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the Judgment and decree in M.C.O.P.No.943 of 1999 dated 01.11.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District Court, Salem. For Appellant : Mr. Md. Ismail for Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr.V.R. Rajasekaran[for R1 & R2] Mr.T. Murugamanickam[for R3] J U D G M E N T The allegations contained in the claim petition are as follows: The deceased Kalaimani was the daughter of the petitioners (1st and 2nd respondents herein). She was aged 12 years and was studying VI standard at the time of accident. She was engaged as a coolie by the first respondent, vehicle owner for collection of tapicona thippi (waste) in the mill by him. She was earning Rs.1000/- per month. On 3.6.1999 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased and some other ladies in the first respondent's mill loaded tapioca thippi in the first respondent's truck and trailer, the deceased Kalaimani was sitting behind the driver of the truck bearing Registration No.TN 27 Z 1119 to unload the tapioca thippi loaded in the trailer bearing registration No.TN 27 Z 3656. Since the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and turned suddenly towards Belur, the deceased Kalaimani slipped, fell down, caught under the wheel of the trailer and died in the spot. Hence a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is prayed for as compensation. 2. In the counter filed by the first respondent it is stated that the allegation that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle got involved in the accident is incorrect. He drove the vehicle in a careful manner. The claim is excessive. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tractor and Trailer were insured with the second respondent and the insurance was in force from 26.9.1998 to 25.9.1999. The second respondent is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. In the counter filed by the second respondent it is stated that the age income and occupation of the deceased are denied. She never worked in the first respondent's Mill. In violation of the policy terms she travelled in the tractor. As per the Motor Vehicle's Act nobody can travel in a tractor. On account of violation of policy conditions, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The driver did not possess valid licence at the time of accident. The compensation claimed is highly excessive. Hence the petition has to be dismissed. 4. Upon analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has found that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- to the petitioners. Aggrieved against the said award and anchoring liability upon it, the Insurance Company is before this Court. 5. There is not much debate with regard to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver since he has admitted the offence before the Criminal Court and paid fine as seen from Ex.P.6, copy of Judgment. 6. It is admitted fact that Kalaimani was sitting in the tractor by the side of the driver at the time of accident, while other women were travelling by the trailer. In this context, it has to be seen whether the tractor and trailer were utilised for agricultural purpose and whether travel of the deceased Kalaimani was connected to the agricultural operations in the affairs of the first respondent. In F.I.R., Ex.P.1, it is stated that the deceased used to go to the mill belonging to the first respondent for loading and unloading the tapioca waste in the tractor. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased who says as such. P.W.2 would say about the negligence on the part of the driver. He is also one among the coolies travelled by the trailer, who says that in the tractor, tapioca waste had been loaded. The available evidence would indicate that for the purpose of loading and unloading tapioca waste in the mill belonging to the first respondent, the deceased was employed. It is also observed that it is connected to the agricultural operations of the first respondent. Even if the first respondent was engaged in processing of tapioca in his mill, as regards the agricultural produce of others, then the Insurance Company is liable as per the decision of the Madhaya Pradesh High Court in Malkibai v. Badri Prasad,1996 ACJ 38 (MP), as referred by the Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in 2008 ACJ 588 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Vijay Singh and Others]. In the Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment, it is held that if a tractor was being used for agricultural purposes even for hire for other cultivators, the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to say that the same was being used not for agricultural purpose. I am in respectful agreement with the abovesaid proposition. In the light of the said observation, it has to be necessarily held that at the time of accident, the tractor was utilised for agricultural purpose. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. With regard to the liability of the Insurance Company, since the deceased was travelling in the tractor in the capacity of "load- man", it is responsible to pay compensation. This Court in C.M.A. No.632 of 2003 dated 19.2.2009 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Hosur v. Loganayaki and Others] has held that while a tractor and trailer are being utilised for agricultural purposes and if the owner or his representative as load-man travelled by the vehicle and in case he got personal injuries or otherwise, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 8. In this context, the oral evidence of R.W.1 is also worth mentioning, who is Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company. In his cross examination he has stated that in the policy Ex.P.1 against the column "Pillion Passenger" a premium of Rs.75/- has been mentioned and collected which is for "unlimited liability". "Pillion Passenger" refers to a person who is travelling along with the driver, as per the claimant's contention, which could be countenanced. In such view of this matter, it ought to be held that the policy squarely covers "Pillion Passenger". Kalaimani travelled not only in the capacity of "Load man" but also as "Pillion Passenger". 9. As far as the non possession of valid driving licence by the driver of the vehicle is concerned, it is on record that a criminal case was lodged against him for driving the vehicle without possessing licence also. C.C.No.491 of 1999 was registered on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem in which Charge Sheet Ex.P.3 was laid against him under Sections 304(A)IPC, Sections 187 and 3 r/w 181 M.V. Act. He admitted the offences and paid fine before the Court as evident from Ex.P.6, copy of Judgment. In these circumstances it has been established that the driver of first respondent drove the vehicle without having valid driving licence at the time of accident. 10. As for the liability of the Insurance Company in this regard, learned counsel for the Appellant would contend that the company is not at all liable to pay compensation. He placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 2007 ACJ 1909 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Brij Mohan and Others] wherein Their Lordships have referred to an earlier decision of the Court and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation as fixed by the Tribunal and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle as directed in Nanjappan's Case [2004 ACJ 721 (SC)]. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus: "15. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Kusum Rai, 2006 ACJ 1336 (SC), this Court observed. "17. Thus, although we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 136 of the Constitution of India but we direct that appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan, 2004 ACJ 721 (SC)."" 11. The guidelines and the procedures formulated by Their Lordships for the Insurance Company in the Nanjappan's Case (supra) are in the following lines: "8. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428(SC), that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Claims Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents-claimants within 3 months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured." 12. A Full Bench of this Court in 2009 (1) CTC 1 [Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Dharmapuri Town vs. Nagammal and others] has also held that in the proceedings where the Insurance Company is successful in its defence, a direction may be issued to the company to pay the amount to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner. The operative portion of the Judgment is as follows: ii) Section 149 envisages the defences which are open to the Insurance company. Where the Insurance Company is not successful in its defence, obviously it is required to satisfy the decree and the award. Where it is successful in its defence, it may yet be required to pay the amount to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner under such circumstance envisaged and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ enumerated in Section 149(4) and Section 149(5)." 13. As regards the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal, this Court does not find any infirmity and the observations with respect to the same are confirmed. 14. Following the decisions rendered by the Apex Court and this Court, it is held that the owner is liable to pay compensation and the Insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimants as fixed by the Tribunal and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, first respondent as per the principles laid down in Nanjappan's case (supra). 15. In the light of the above said observations and directions aforestated, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ggs To 1. The Principal District Judge, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Salem. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras-104. + 1 CC To Mr.T.Murugamanikkam, Advocate SR NO.8294 + 1 CC To Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Advocate SR NO.8057 JUDGMENT IN C.M.A.No.1061 of 2003 MBS {CO} TP/14.5.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/