The commissioner ordered the automobile’s proprietor to pay the quantity and exonerated the insurance coverage firm.
The insurance coverage firm additionally denied the declare on the grounds that the tractor’s driver didn’t have a legitimate driver’s licence and the automobile’s proprietor didn’t comply with the obligatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act
The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Friday famous {that a} everlasting licence holder having an efficient legitimate licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying items.
A single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke was listening to an enchantment filed by the widow and two kids in opposition to the judgment dated April 10, 2019, handed by the Commissioner beneath the Employees Compensation Act, Labour Court at Chandrapur, the place the courtroom solely made the proprietor of the automobile liable to pay compensation and exonerated the insurance coverage firm from any legal responsibility.
The courtroom referred to part 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act and said: “A licence is offered to drive particular varieties of motor automobiles; an individual with a legitimate driving licence to drive a particular kind of car doesn’t lose the flexibility to drive that automobile simply because a trailer is added to it.”
“Merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used to carry goods does not render the licence to drive a tractor ineffective; otherwise, every time an owner of a private car who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods on it, the light motor vehicle becomes a transport vehicle and the owner is deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle,” the courtroom identified.
​The deceased was employed with the proprietor of the automobile as labour the place he was getting Rs 5,200. On May 10, 2014, the deceased was working a tractor with a trailer. Ajay Satpute operated the tractor in a zigzag sample, due to which the deceased, who was sitting within the tractor, fell down on the highway the place he sustained a number of accidents and died.
The claimants contended that the demise suffered was due to rash and negligent driving and sought Rs 4,72,842 with curiosity on the charge of 12% each year and 50% penalty as compensation. They additionally contended that each the proprietor of the automobile and the insurance coverage firm must be collectively liable.
The proprietor of the corporate admitted the possession of the automobile and additional said that there was no employer and worker relationship between the deceased and the proprietor of the automobile.
The insurance coverage firm additionally denied the declare on the grounds that the tractor’s driver didn’t have a legitimate driver’s licence and the automobile’s proprietor didn’t comply with the obligatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act.
The commissioner ordered the automobile’s proprietor to pay the quantity and exonerated the insurance coverage firm. Therefore, the claimants have filed an enchantment earlier than the current bench in opposition to this judgment.
Shri Madhur Deo, counsel for claimants, said: “that realized Commissioner erred in exonerating the insurance coverage firm from satisfying the legal responsibility and there was no breach of coverage and the insurance coverage firm is liable to pay compensation.”
Counsel for the owner of the vehicle S.S. Ghate submitted that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation because the vehicle was validly insured with them.
The bench allowed the first appeal and made the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
Read all of the Latest India News right here
