The liability of an Insurance Company for a motor vehicle accident is determined based on the insurance coverage of the vehicles involved, and the court may dismiss additional claims if not raised through cross-appeal or cross-objection.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (Raj.) (for short ’the Tribunal’) in MAC case No. 159/2007 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,71,328/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal, the appellantInsurance Company has submitted this appeal on the following ground inter alia that the accident occurred on 26.09.2007 with a trailer/trolley which was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in FIR itself i.e. Ex.1, it is the admitted case that the incident has occurred by striking of the motorcycle with the trailer/trolley which was standing five feet away from the divider. Counsel further submitted that the site plan (Ex.3) indicates that the trolley was standing five feet away from the divider and there is no mention about the number of the tractor. Counsel further submitted that when the accident occurred a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act of 1988’) was given to the registered owner of the vehicle who has also admitted in his reply (Ex.4) that driver Giriraj informed him that the tyre of the tractor was burst and after leaving the trolley on the spot, he went in tractor to get the tyre repaired. Counsel further submitted that since the deceased and the informant are Police personnel, so in connivance with the Police after four days of the incident i.e. on 30.09.2007, the tractor was seized and the tractor was wrongly involved to get compensation. Counsel further submitted that even charge-sheet was not submitted against the driver of the vehicle for the offence under Section 279 IPC and no notice under Section 134 of the Act of 1988 was given to the driver, so all these situations create doubt about the involvement of the tractor in the incident which occurred on 26.09.2007.

4. Counsel further submitted that the deceased was a Police Constable and he was supposed to act in accordance with law, but he was not keeping proper distance as per the road traffic rules and he himself was responsible for the incident.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 RLW (Raj.) 3394 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the FIR cannot be read in part and the FIR is required to be read as a whole, while in the instant case the Tribunal has committed an error and irregularity in reading the FIR in part not in whole. Counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sohan Lal and Ors., reported in 2013 (1) PLR 706 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where the trailer is not insured and no part of the tractor is involved in the accident and only trolley is involved in the accident, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased was not having license to ply the vehicle even then he was plying the vehicle so he himself was responsible for the incident. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rehmani Begum Vs. Krishan Pal in MAC Appeal No. 594/2017. Lastly, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that there was no involvement of the tractor as the Tribunal has erroneously passed the award in favour of the claimants respondents which is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for th