Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1.The user of the vehicle for non-agricultural purpose;
2.Carrying passenger in a tractor which is normally not meant for the said purpose;

Elaborating on the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant would content that the tractor which is meant only for agricultural purposes, have been used for loading sugar cane. Hence, there is violation of a policy condition. As regards the 2nd contention of the learned counsel is that the deceased travelled as a passenger in the tractor. According to him, in the claim petition it is mentioned that the deceased has travelled in the tractor as a cleaner. But, in the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that the deceased travelled as a loadman at the time of the accident. The further contention of the learned counsel is that even assuming that the deceased travelled in the tractor either as a cleaner or a loadman no premium has been collected as per the IMT 28 to cleaner/loadman. According to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the learned counsel, as per the '' Guidelines on rationalisation of provisions of erstwhile All India Motor Trariff dated 29.03.2012'' the Authorities has decided that the revised premium for coverage of paid drivers, conductors and employees under the WC Act be increased from Rs.25/- per capita to Rs.50/- per capita. Therefore, IMT 28 provides for extra premium for driver or cleaner or conductor employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle and the premium applicable is Rs.50/- per person. Whereas, in the present case only Rs.50/- is paid for IMT 28 which is only for one person. Hence, the learned counsel would contend that the deceased was unauthorised passenger and was travelling on the engine portion, seating capacity is only for driver and no additional premium paid to cover the alleged risk. The Tribunal based on the oral testimony and documents pertaining held that the driver of the said tractor and trailer was responsible for the accident and the insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation inspite of marking the policy copy and examining the witnesses explaining the type of cover offered under the policy. It is further submitted that the Tribunal without proof of alleged avocation fixed Rs.15,000/- as monthly income of the deceased and granted compensation contrary to the principles laid down in Prenay Sethi case. Further being a worker he is not entitled to claim under general damages. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants would submit that it is seen from the policy that a premium of Rs.50/- has been collected as per the IMT 28 to paid driver/conductor/cleaner. Since the insured has paid extra premium for driver and employee, the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability. To support his contention he has relied upon the following decision cases:

18.The Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the deceased was travelling in the tractor as gratuituous passenger and hence there is a violation of the policy condition regarding the user of the vehicle. On the question of liability of the insurance company the further contention is that there is no policy coverage for the deceased.

19.On the question of the liability of the insurance company, it is seen from the policy marked as Ex.R.1 which discloses that the insurance company has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis collected premium of Rs.50/- for paid driver/conductor/cleaner under IMT 28. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company as per the Guidelines dated 29.03.2012 IMT 28 provides for extra premium per capital to Rs.50/- for driver or cleaner or conductor employed with the conductor with the operation of insured vehicle.Therefore, the deceased would not be covered by the policy. Moreover, the deceased at the time of the accident has travelled in the tractor sitting on mudguard and the tractor being goods vehicle there has been breach of condition of policy. In the Manager IFFCO-TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.lTD., V.G. RAMESH, 2012(1) TN MAC 820 this Court referring Asha Rani's case and other judgments, has held as follows: