IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1564 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.377/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS 1 TO 5 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNAKUMARI, W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, CHERINGOTTUKOLERY, THEKKUMANGALAM, LAKKIDI POST, OTTAPALAM. 2. ANEESH, MINOR AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, DO., REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN PASANNAKUMARI. 3. BINEESH, MINOR AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, S/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, DO. REP. BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN PRASANNAKUMARI. 4. CHINNUKUTTY AMMA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, M/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, DO. 5. RAMANKUTTY EZHUTHACHAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, F/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, DO. 6. V.RAJAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, CHOLAYIL VEEDU, THEKKUMANGALAM, LAKKIDI P.O., OTTAPALAM. 7. SEBASTIAN JOHN, ETHAKKADU HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA, OTTAPALAM. ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON FOR R6,7 SRI.M.JITHESH MENON FOR R6,7 SRI.R.SREEHARI FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.R.VENUGOPAL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1564 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the MACT directing the insurer to pay compensation for the death of a person who died on account of fall from a tractor. We have heard Standing Counsel for the appellant, counsel for the respondents- claimants and counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 2. Counsel for the appellant referred to decision of the Supreme Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V. BRIJ MOHAN (2007(3) KLT 123 (SC)) and contended that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation for the death of a person who fell down from a tractor and died. On going through the judgment of the Supreme Court, we find that the Supreme Court exonerated the Insurance Company from liability because the tractor in that case was insured as an agricultural equipment used for agricultural works. The specific finding in that case was that the tractor involved 2 was not treated as a goods carriage and it was meant to be used for agricultural purpose. In violation of the condition of policy of insurance, the tractor in that case was used in the brick-kiln for digging and transporting earth for making bricks. However, in this case we find from the Insurance policy that the tractor involved was insured under a comprehensive police as "goods carrying general vehicle". A tractor by itself is a farm equipment and is not designed to carry goods. Obviously when a policy is issued for the tractor as a goods carrying vehicle, it presupposes that a trailer or side car can be attached to it. In the description of nature of use of the insured vehicle, it is stated that the vehicle is also used for carriage of goods and clause (2) specifically authorises use of the tractor for drawing a trailer. Persons covered by the Schedule to the policy are driver, cooli/employees. If the argument of counsel that the tractor has only one seat and that is for the driver is accepted, then we see no reason why coolies and employees are covered by the Insurance policy. This presupposes that the tractor 3 insured in this case is intended to carry goods which is possible by attachment of a trailer. Therefore, we do not think the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the counsel squarely applies to the facts of this case. 3. The circumstances which led to death of the person on account of fall from the tractor is not clear. It is not known whether the tractor had a trailer at the time of the accident. What is stated in the award is that the man who died was an agent engaged in purchase and sale of laterite stone and the accident occurred near to quarry. On the face of it, tractor would have been used for transport of laterite stones or it would have been going to pick up the stones from the quarry. Since the deceased was engaged in the tractor for transport of goods, he should be taken as a person traveling in the vehicle in his capacity as owner of the goods, whether the purpose of travel was to take goods from the quarry or return after unloading goods. We, therefore, feel compensation is payable by the insurer for the death of the person and 4 the MACT rightly upheld the claim. Even though counsel for the Insurance Company raised a contention that light motor vehicle licence is not sufficient for the driver to transport the goods, the issue is covered by decision reported in PRABHAKARAN V. JAMES 2008(3) KLT 739. Consequently, we reject this contention also. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms