IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.541 of 2008 DATE:17.06.2010 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited …… Appellant/Respondent-2 And: U.Sudhakar and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A. No.541 of 2008 JUDGMENT : Insurance company is the appellant. The appellant questions both liability as well as quantum of compensation in this appeal. 2) It is a case where the claimant/1st respondent/P.W-1 who was sitting on the tractor along with the driver suffered injury to his leg in the accident. Finally the injured leg of the claimant was amputated. In so far as amputation of leg is concerned, the lower Tribunal determined compensation on the basis of income of the claimant at Rs.1,500/- per month and taking permanent disability at 35% and applying multiplier at 18.246. Apart from that, the lower Tribunal granted Rs.66,000/- towards medical treatment as the said amount was covered by bills and vouchers. Further, the lower Tribunal granted Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. This is not a case of injuries or grievous injuries. In this case, the claimant underwent surgical operation resulting in amputation of leg upto knee. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that amount of Rs.50,000/- granted as compensation for pain and suffering is appropriate. 3) With regard to the liability is concerned, the appellant’s counsel placed reliance on terms contained in Ex.B-1 policy of insurance. It is contended that the vehicle is a tractor which should be used only for agricultural purpose and that seating capacity is only one as noted in the policy and that therefore liability of insurance company is not there except for the driver. According to the claimant, he was travelling in the tractor and trailer as loading and unloading cooly. Though a tractor is basically used for agricultural purpose, the appellant-insurance company issued package policy in this case taking the vehicle as goods carrying commercial vehicle. In such a vehicle, loading and unloading coolies cannot be said to be unauthorised passengers. Further, column of limitations in Ex.B-1 policy includes carrying passengers in vehicles except employees not exceeding the number permitted in registered document and coming under the purview of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Thus, the policy covers liability of loading and unloading coolies in the composite vehicle of tractor and trailer. It is vehemently contended that since seating capacity is shown as one in the policy, the claimant sitting by the side of driver was unauthorised and that therefore insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as it amounts to violation of policy conditions. Reliance was placed on Vachala V. V.R.Kumar[1], of this Court on this aspect. It was observed in that decision that the offending vehicle being a light motor goods vehicle with seating capacity for one i.e., driver, question of anybody else either it be owner of the goods or his authorised representative being allowed to travel therein cannot arise in view of Rule 252(5) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. This decision is not applicable to facts of the present case because though seating capacity as per the policy is shown as one, there is specific condition in the policy that it covers liability of passengers in vehicle who are employees. As pointed out earlier, the claimant was travelling in the vehicle as loading and unloading coolie. There is no condition in the policy that such coolies should sit at a particular place only in the vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer. At any rate, assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that seating capacity of the tractor is only one, Ex.B-1 policy does not specify whether it is driver or any other person. It shows that liability of the insurance company is limited to one in case the claimant was sitting in the tractor. In this accident, only the 1st respondent/claimant suffered injuries and there is only one claim relating to this accident. Therefore, applying decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited V. Anjana Shyam[2], it has to be held that the insurance company can dispute its liability in case there is more than one claim. Since it is a single claim accident, it is immaterial whether it is a driver or any other claimant who is a loading and unloading coolie. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the insurance company cannot avoid liability in this case. I find that there are no merits in this appeal. 4) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 17, 2010 KSH [1] 2004(5) ALT 460 [2] (2007)7 Supreme Court Cases 445