IMPORTANT POINT
The insurance company is required to pay compensation to the claimant despite not being liable to indemnify the owner due to policy breaches, establishing a precedent for similar cases.

JUDGMENT :

Rekha Borana, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurance company against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Motor Accident Claims Case No.39/1998.

The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned Award dated 04.10.2000, awarded a sum of Rs. 7,39,900/-as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 28.04.1998, holding Insurance Company also liable to pay compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred by the claimant Shri Swaroop Singh with the submission that on 30.06.1996, at about 04:00 PM, he was going on tractor bearing registration no.RJ13-5712 for testing its “Hera Set”. After about 3 kilometres from Loonkaransar, when it reached near Shambhu Singh Hotel, respondent no.3 Dulla Ram, while driving the tractor rashly and negligently, suddenly took the tractor on a sand dune whereby, the tractor overturned. As a result, the claimant came under the tractor and sustained injuries.

The Tractor, on the date of accident, was owned by respondent no.2 and was insured with appellant– Insurance Company.

The claimant claimed a total compensation to the tune of Rs.34,00,000/- under various heads.

3. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on the record and after hearing the counsel for the parties, awarded total compensation of Rs.7,39,900/-in favour of the claimant holding all the non-claimants including the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

4. The grounds raised by the appellant Insurance Company and as argued by counsel for the appellant are as under:

(a) Driver Dulla Ram was not in the employment of the owner and hence, the accident having been caused by an unauthorised driver, the liability should have been fixed on him only and not the company.

(b) It is the owner who sent the tractor to a mechanic for repairs and the claimant mechanic Swaroop Singh, accompanied driver of the tractor for the purposes of testing, therefore, it would only be the owner who would be liable as the act whatsoever, was on his implied consent.

(c) Admittedly, the insurance policy could cover the risk of only one person i.e. the driver of a tractor and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable qua the compensation to any other occupant other than the driver.

(d) The tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and it been used for the purpose of hire/reward, the same being a breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, Insurance company cannot be held liable.

5. The case of the owner before the Tribunal was that his authorised driver was Daulat Ram Saran to whom he had handed over the vehicle. Dulla Ram, the driver at the time of the accident was not in his employment and neither did he grant any permission to Dulla Ram to drive/use the vehicle. Therefore, the liability, if any, would be of Dulla Ram only. Secondly, the claimant was not authorized to sit in the tractor and he sat on the same of his own and therefore, the owner of the tractor could not be held liable qua the compensation.

During the course of the arguments, counsel appearing for the respondent owner also submitted that even otherwise no prayer has been made in the present appeal to quash or set aside the impugned judgment/award and hence, the Court need not interfere.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 claimant submitted that the story framed by the owner averring Daulat Ram to be his authorised driver, was an afterthought. Counsel submitted that it was Dulla Ram only who took the tractor for repairs to the claimant and it is only with the consent of Dulla Ram that the claimant boarded the tractor for testing purposes.

Due to the rash and negligent driving of Dulla Ram, he sustained the injuries. Therefore, the award as passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be affirmed in toto and no interference in the same