The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Manager Vs. Boya Sangamma and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Motor Vehicles |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Dec-11-1991 |
| Appeal Against Order No. 99 of 1989 |
| Radhakrishna Rao, J. |
| 1993(1)ALT566 |
| Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 92A and 96 |
| The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Manager |
| Boya Sangamma and ors. |
| Kota Subba Rao, Adv. |
| K. Palaksha Reddy, Adv. for Respondents 1 and 2 and ;R. Ramanujacharyulu, Adv. for Respondent No. 3 |
| Appeal allowed |
.....products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the..........has been raised by the insurance company is that the vehicle has to be used for carrying goods or for agricultural purpose but the vehicle involved in the accident is used for sprinkling water purpose which is prohibited under section 96 of the statute. under the circumstances, this court feels that the liability can be fixed jointly on the insurance corporation as well as the owner of the vehicle but the entire liability cannot be fixed on the insurance company. therefore, taking into account section 92-a of the motor vehicles act and the relevant decision of this court, this court fixes liability of the insurance company to the extent of rs.l5,000/-and the remaining amount of compensation awarded, on the owner of the vehicles, i.e., owner of the tractor and trailor. accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. nor order as to costs.
Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. The claim has been made on account of the death of the son of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner in the O.P.No. 340/87. The accident that occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle is undisputed. An amount of Rs. 34,000/- and odd has been awarded as compensation. The Insurance company filed the present appeal.
2. The contention that has been raised by the Insurance Company is that the vehicle has to be used for carrying goods or for agricultural purpose but the vehicle involved in the accident is used for sprinkling water purpose which is prohibited under Section 96 of the Statute. Under the circumstances, this court feels that the liability can be fixed jointly on the Insurance Corporation as well as the owner of the vehicle but the entire liability cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company. Therefore, taking into account Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant decision of this court, this court fixes liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.l5,000/-and the remaining amount of compensation awarded, on the owner of the vehicles, i.e., owner of the tractor and trailor. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. Nor order as to costs.