K THIRUPATHI REDDY Vs. RAJEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of parties we have heard the appeal on merits.

(2.) Appellant was R-2 in MVC 72/1993 before the MACT, Srirangapatna. R-l & 2 were the claimants before the tribunal. They lodged claim petition claiming compensation on account of the death of their son Mahesh who died on 7.8.1992 at about 11 p.m. when he was working in a lorryy under the appellant herein. According to the claimants, Maheah was getting a salary of Rs.1800.00 per month. In addition to that every day he was getting a sum of Rs.20.00 as daily batta. Deceased was the only earning member of the family. Insurance company contended that though policy is issued it does not cover the risk of a loader or third party as the policy was issued in respect of a machine and which also is known as contractors plant and machinery insurance policy. Therefore, insurance company requested the tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. Before the tribunal, father of the deceased was examined as PW-1, one eye-witness was examined as PW-2. Tribunal, after considering the terms and conditions of the policy which was produced as Annexure-R1 held that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the machinery since the same has not covered the risk of the accident. After assessing the income of the deceased awarded a sum of Rs. 1,59,000.00 as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. fixing the liability on the owner of the machinery. This judgment and award is called in question in this appeal.

(3.) According to the counsel for the appellant, even though machinery in question was insured with the insurance company, tribunal without application of mind did not saddled the liability on the insurance company. According to him, though the policy is termed as contractor's plant and machinery, insurance company in view of the premium paid by the appellant, it covers the risk of the accident caused on account of the use of machinery. Therefore, he requests the Court to reverse the findings of the tribunal in regard to the liability and direct the insurance company to pay compensation awarded in the case. Per contra, counsel for the insurance company contends that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, insurance company has agreed to indemnify the machinery alone and not the accident caused by it. Therefore, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.