MACMA/3501/2011 of Smt. C.Gangamma Vs A.Chokkalingam on 30 December 2011

JUDGMENT:

The appeal is filed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.180 of2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V AdditionalDistrict Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, questioning the quantum ofcompensation and also exonerating the liability of the InsuranceCompany.

2. A claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was filed by thepetitioners, who are parents, the brother and the sister of the deceasedG.Venkata Ramana consequent on his death in a motor accident whenhe was said to be employed as a cleaner on a private bus bearingNo.AP 03 V 1341 on 17.11.2001. The Insurance Company hascontended that the policy does not cover the risk of the cleaner; it onlycovers the risk of the passengers, driver and conductor only. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the compensation. Afterconsidering the evidence on record, the Tribunal below has granted acompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and exonerated the liability of theInsurance Company.

3. The points for consideration are:

1) Whether the quantum of compensation granted bythe lower Tribunal is just and reasonable?the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to paythe compensation?the compensation?

4. POINTS:

There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was insuredwith the 2[nd] respondent and it covers the risk of driver, conductor and50 passengers. The fact that the deceased was unmarried is also notin dispute. Mainly the contention of the learned counsel for theInsurance Company is that the claim of PW.1, who is the mother ofdeceased, that the deceased was a cleaner and the claim petition wasfiled on the said basis and consequently the lower Tribunal has rightlyaccepted the contention and dismissed the claim. Evidently, the busthat was involved in the incident is a private travels bus. In order tosee as to whether the liability of the Insurance Company is to be thereor not, it is essential to see as to what are the duties that were done bythe deceased on the bus. PW.1 is evidently a laywoman and thenature of the duties, which were said to have been discharged by thedeceased as a cleaner, which she has stated cannot be taken asconclusive. It is common knowledge that whenever a private travelsbus takes a policy of Insurance they do not have any separateconductor, and the driver and the cleaner will be running the bus andthe cleaner also discharges the duties as a conductor in getting thepassengers seated and loading of the luggage. Therefore, in view ofthe above circumstances, the evidence of PW.1, who is a laywomanthat her son was a cleaner, cannot be taken as conclusive. It requiresfurther evidence to be taken as to whether apart from nature of dutiesperformed by the deceased on the bus and if apart from being calledas a cleaner is also discharging the duties as a Conductor, then theInsurance Company cannot be exonerated of the liability.

5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the award of thelower Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lowerTribunal for giving an opportunity to petitioners as to whether thedeceased was discharging duties as that of a Conductor also thoughhe may be called as a cleaner. So far as the quantum ofcompensation is concerned, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. In case the lower Tribunal is found that the deceased also aConductor and policy is covered the risk of the Conductor, the liabilityof the Insurance Company to pay the interest, shall arise only from thedate of order to be passed by the lower Tribunal after remand.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by remand. No costs.

Date:30.12.2011INL

_______________________________

JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO