IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the insurance policy and its exceptions determine the coverage of third party risk, and the court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the policy provisions and relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT :

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 29.10.2010 passed in MVC.No.9966/2008 by 24th Addl. Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (ACMM-22), fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle/machinery for payment of compensation and also for enhancement of compensation.

2. The factum of accident is not in dispute.

3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

4. In the present case, the Tribunal has fastened liability on respondent No.1-owner on the ground that the insurance policy issued is Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy and it is not Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy. Therefore, the risk of third party is not covered under the said Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy. Based on this, the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened liability on respondent No.1-owner of the machinery/vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that the offending vehicle is a motor vehicle as its nomenclature is mentioned as “Motor Taradar” as described in the certificate of registration issued by the Regional Transport Authorities. Therefore, when the Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy is issued, third party risk is covered. The claimant is a third party. Therefore, the insurance policy issued covers the risk of claimant also. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Tara Chanda & Sons Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, ILR 2016 KAR 5581 (hereinafter referred to as M/s Tara Chanda’s case for short). Therefore, prays that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation by indemnifying the owner. Hence, prays for modification of liability.

6. Though, notice is served on respondent No.1- owner, he has not appeared before the Court and hence, notice to respondent No.1 is held sufficient.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the insurance policy issued is Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance policy, but not issued under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the insurance policy is a pure contractual policy for plant and machinery and in the said policy, the instant vehicles/machineries are covered. Hence, when the insurance policy is not a motor vehicle policy, but using the vehicle/machinery on public road, and accident is caused, hence, as per the clauses in the insurance policy issued, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner as per Clause (h) in Exceptions in the insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in not fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore, prays to confirm the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of K.Thirupathi Reddy Vs. Rajegowda and Others, ILR 2010 KAR 3406 (hereinafter referred to as K.Thirupathis Reddy’s case for short).

8. The admitted factual matrix in the case is that Motor Taradar/Sureaser (JCB) is involved in the accident while it was moving reverse from North to South direction with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant and the claimant sustained injuries and it has occurred in the place called Hosur Main Road, in service road, in front of Balaji Steels at Bangalore. These are the admitted facts. Ex.R.1 is the copy of policy and Ex.R.2 is the terms and conditions of policy. Ex.R1 and Ex.R.2 are the policy issued as Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy. The insurance policy issued is not under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. It is a pure Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Policy (CPM Policy). Therefore, under these circumstances, when policy issued is CPM Policy, third party risk is covered or not is to be considered in the context of nature of insurance policy as above discussed.

9. No doubt, the vehicle/machinery is “Motor Taradar” as per the cert