Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Iffco-tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Others - Appellants
Versus
Vasantha And Others - Respondents
M.F.A. No. 5164 of 2013 and M.F.A. Crob. No. 120/2014
Decided On : 03-03-2020
B.C. Seetharama Rao and Halesha R.G., Advocates, for the Appellant; Halesha R.G., B.S. Prasad and B.C. Seetharama Rao, Advocates, for the Respondent
The combination of Tractor-Trailer is considered a goods carriage vehicle, and the Insurance policy covers any injury suffered while traveling in the Tractor-Trailer.
Headnote:
Tractor-Trailer - Liability of Insurance Company - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 147, Regulation 28 of the Road Regulations of 1989 - The combination of Tractor-Trailer is considered a goods carriage vehicle and the Insurance policy covers any injury suffered while traveling in the Tractor-Trailer.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition stating that their son was traveling in a Tractor when it turned turtle, resulting in his death and injuries to others. The Insurance Company opposed the claim on the grounds that the Tractor could only be used for agricultural purposes, had a seating capacity of one, and the driver did not have a valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tractor-Trailer was used for ferrying people in furtherance of agricultural activities and the Insurance policy covered the death and injuries caused by the accident.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Insurance company was liable to pay compensation for the accident and whether the deceased and injured were covered under the Insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the combination of Tractor-Trailer is considered a goods carriage vehicle, and the Insurance policy covers any injury suffered while traveling in the Tractor-Trailer. The burden of proof for exclusion of liability lies with the Insurance company.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Judgment of the MACT was confirmed.
JUDGMENT
Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company is before this court seeking for setting aside the Judgment of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Channarayapatna passed in MVC No. 7/2011 dated 10.04.2013.
2. The claim petition had been filed stating that on 28.12.2009 at about 10.30 p.m. the son of claimants was travelling in a Tractor bearing No. KA-14-T-9966 from Hosudi kere to Hosudi village, when the Tractor came near the house of Suresh Bhatt on account of the driver of the Tractor driving in a rash and negligent manner, the Tractor turned turtle, the son of the claimants and two others were caught between the earth and the Tractor, on account of which the son of the claimant and another person expired and others sustained grievous injuries. FIR came to be registered on the same date alleging that the deceased was travelling on the engine of the Tractor and that around 10.30 p.m. when the Tractor turned turtle, the son of the claimants had expired. The said FIR was lodged by one Dinakaran as per Ex. P2, spot panchanama was also conducted as per Ex. P4 on 29.12.2009 wherein it is recorded that the Tractor bearing No. KA-14-T-9966 along with its Trailer was found on the spot. On the basis of the above, the claim petition was filed before the MACT.
3. The claim petition was opposed by the Insurance Company on the ground that:
i. The vehicle viz., Tractor could be used only for agricultural purposes, it could not be used to ferry people, therefore any injury caused to persons travelling on the Tractor would not be the liability of the insurer;
ii. The seating capacity of the Tractor was one, however, there were four people travelling on the Tractor. Therefore, there is violation of Regulation 28 of the IMV Regulation, in view thereof, insurer is not responsible to pay any amount as compensation;
iii. It was contended that the driver of the Tractor did not have any valid and effective driving licence apart from various other general defects which were raised in the written statement.
4. On the basis of the claim petition and the written statement filed, the MACT framed the following issues:
i. Whether the petitioners prove that on 28.12.09 at about 10.30 p.m. when their son was going in a Tractor bearing No. KA-14-T-9966 near the house of Sureshbhatt, Hosudi village then at that time the driver of a above Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and turned turtled his vehicle into a ditch and as a result of it their son fell under the wheels of above Tractor and has succumbed to the injuries?
ii. Whether the petitioners are entitle to the compensation? If yes, what amount and from whom?
iii. What Order or award?
And answered the same in favour of the claimants and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay total compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization on certain conditions.
5. The Insurance Company on appeal has not questioned the quantum and or the calculation, the only ground on which the insurance Company is on appeal is that there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Company on account of deceased having travelled on the Tractor and the Tractor being incapable of being used for ferrying people, the Insurance company is not responsible for the same. Thus, it is contended that the Judgment of the MACT directing the Insurance company to make payment of compensation is not sustainable in law. In this regard, the learned counsel for Insurance Company relied on the Order of this Court in MFA 7468/2002 DD 5.07.2005 ( United Insurance Limited v. Channawwa and others ) and contended that it is only the driver of the Tractor who was covered under the Insurance Policy and since there were other workmen who had travelled along with the driver on the mudguard of the Tractor, it was held that the Insurance policy was not applicable to those persons by further relying on Regulation 28 of the Road Regulations o
