UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ODETI MALLU BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this court as he felt that there is no authoritative pronouncement of this court on the question whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the owner of a vehicle who died in an accident while driving the vehicle.

(2.) ONE Odeti Bhanu Reddy was the owner of the tractor bearing No. APR 6771 and the trailer APR 6772. While driving the said tractor, on his way to his field, he slipped off the tractor, fell down on the ground and was run over by the tractor. He succumbed to the injuries and died on the spot. The tractor was having valid insurance coverage policy issued by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , the appellant herein, which was valid from 1. 3. 1983 to 29. 2. 1984. The deceased was 48 years old at the time of his death. He was Sarpanch of Bommapur village. By cultivation he was earning Rs. 1,200/- per month. He was survived by the petitioners of whom the petitioner No. 1 is his wife, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons and petitioner No. 4 is his daughter. They claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in all under different heads under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act' ). The insurance company resisted the claim on the ground that the policy did not cover the risk of the owner of the tractor. Under Endorsement No. 16 the risk of the driver is covered for the liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is urged that the term driver in the policy means an employee and not the owner, so the claim for compensation was not maintainable. It is also urged that the owner of the vehicle was a party to the contract with the insurance company under which it undertook to indemnify the owner for the liability arising against him under the terms of the policy, but the owner himself could not claim any compensation for injuries to him and consequently his heirs could have no better claim for compensation on his death. It was also urged that the heirs of the owner could not claim compensation for the negligence of the owner and that negligence was a prerequisite for claiming compensation.

(3.) THE petitioners examined two witnesses, PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exh. A-1, xerox copy of the insurance policy dated 1. 3. 1983 and Exh. A-2, xerox copy of the driving licence dated 20. 2. 1982. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurance company; however, it marked true copy of the insurance policy as Exh. B-1.