IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.916 of 2005 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd., Karimnagar .. Appellant AND Danaveni Kanakaiah & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.916 of 2005 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.707 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 17.01.2005. 2. Danaveni Lachavva and her husband, the first claimant, loaded manure into the tractor and trailer No.AP 15T 1543/1544 for transport to their field on 02.05.2001 at 10.00 a.m. and as the tractor was driven rashly and negligently, there was a jerk by the tractor falling in a small pit on which Lachavva and the first claimant were thrown out and Lachavva fell under the right wheel of the tractor and was crushed to death. Bejjanki Police registered Crime No.52 of 2001 and filed C.C.No.177 of 2001 against the tractor driver before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Husnabad. Lachavva was earning Rs.1,500/- per month as a labourer and contributed entirely to the husband, the first claimant, and the son and two daughters, claimants 2 to 4. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor. 3. While the owner and driver remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying the claims of the claimants and contending that the deceased herself was negligent in sitting on the tractor engine and travelling unauthorizedly. The insurer, claiming the compensation claimed to be excessive, desired the claim to be negatived. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.B-1 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 shows that the deceased, sitting in the trailer of the tractor, was thrown out of the tractor falling into a small pit due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The claims of R.W.1 about the deceased travelling by sitting on the engine of the tractor was physically impossible by the very presence of the engine of the tractor in front of the driver. The Tribunal felt that the insurer did not prove that the husband and wife are sitting on the engine. The rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver being considered to be the cause for the accident, the Tribunal held that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per annum in the absence of any definite evidence about her income and deducting 1/3rd of the same towards her personal expenses, the balance of Rs.8,000/- was taken as the contribution to the family. For her age of 46 years, multiplier of 10 was adopted and apart from the sum quantified at Rs.80,000/-, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/-towards loss of love and affection and loss of estate. The Tribunal gave directions about distribution of the compensation between the claimants and directed interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs also to be paid. 6. The insurer challenged the award in this appeal contending that it took permission in I.A.No.1326 of 2004 on 13.12.2004 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer contended that the deceased and her husband were unauthorized passengers who travelled in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and when the tractor did not provide for seating any passenger except the driver, the Tribunal ignored violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The documentary evidence and the evidence of R.W.1 in this regard were unjustly ignored and the insurer desired the award to be negatived. 7. Heard Sri A. Veera Swamy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the respondents/claimants. 8. The point for consideration herein again is the liability of the insurer and the just and adequate compensation payable to the claimants if they are entitled to the same. 9. The claim of the claimants is that the deceased Lachavva and her husband were travelling in the tractor and trailer after loading it with manure for the purposes of cultivation of the land of the deceased and P.W.1 themselves. The earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report was about the deceased being thrown out of the vehicle while she was sitting on the engine. Ex.A-3-Charge Sheet filed by the police after investigation also stated the same, but as the Tribunal observed with its wisdom and experience, the physical possibility of two persons sitting on the engine of the tractor, while it is being driven on a bumpy path is improbable and unnatural. R.W.1 was obviously not an eye witness to the accident and P.W.2, the independent witness stated that the deceased was travelling in the trailer when she was thrown out of the vehicle. The tractor and trailer being engaged for purposes of loading and carrying manure for the land of the deceased and P.W.1 is not unauthorized and when P.W.1 and his wife themselves were the persons who loaded the goods vehicle and were the persons who have to unload the same in their land, their accompanying goods loaded in the vehicle cannot be considered to be unauthorized. They are obviously the owners of the manure and even if one of them alone is considered as owner, the other can be considered to be the authorized representative of the owner of the goods. Even if the tractor and trailer were to be considered to be a goods vehicle not permitting travel of any passengers, fare paying or free, the deceased and her husband can be brought within the scope of being the owners of the goods being carried in the goods vehicle and Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy is not shown to be not covering the liability of such persons, the liability in respect of whom ought to be covered by the provisions of the statute itself. 10. While the liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor and trailer to justly and adequately compensate the respondents herein cannot be in doubt, the Tribunal took the annual income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per annum, while the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, takes even the earnings of non-earning persons as Rs.15,000/- per annum. The minimum wages payable to unskilled labourers at about the relevant time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, were much more and neither the quantum of income assessed nor the deduction of 1/3rd towards the living expenses of the deceased nor the application of the multiplier nor the grant of compensation towards love and affection and loss of estate can be considered excessive or unreasonable. 11. Under the circumstances, there appear no substantial reasons for interference with the impugned award and decree and, therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19th April, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.916 of 2005 Date: 19th April, 2011 KL