Conditions in an insurance policy that are beyond the circumstances contemplated in Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act are not valid and cannot be relied upon by the insurance company to avoid liability.

This C.M.A. has been preferred against the award dated 9-12-1996 in O.P. No. 1215 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, Chief Judge, Small Causec Court, Chennai. The matter relates to claim for Rs. 10, 22, 000/- for the loss of life of one Dhanaraj caused in a motor accident on 9-10-1993. The wife and minor son have preferred the claim.

2. The 1st respondent in the said O.P. in the counter contested that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. Another important defence was that the vehicle should not be used for any purpose other than agriculture. The vehicle should not be used for carrying goods as per condition No. 10 in the policy. As the vehicle was used for different purpose viz. for carrying goods, the liability of the appellant is not there.

3. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the vehicle in question was a commercial vehicle meant for carrying goods. Insurance company was held to be definitely liable. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the vehicle should be used only for agricultural purposes. As regards the quantum, considering salary of the deceased and age of the deceased as evidence by Ex.P.1, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3, 40, 000/-. The United India Insurance Company has preferred the appeal.

4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. N. Rosi Naidu is that there is a specific purpose mentioned in the policy, that is, the vehicle should be used only for agricultural purposes. In the present case, the vehicle was used for carrying water as it was let on hire in favour of MNWSSB. As the accident took place while the vehicle was let out to MMWSSB for carrying water, the insurance cover was not there.

5. The appellant has also preferred C.M.P. No. 18844 of 1998 for producing the claim form lodged by the 3rd respondent as additional evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed a counter, opposing the said petition. But, considering the fact that the document is one belonging to the 3rd respondent and it only shows that for what purpose, the vehicle was used at the time of the accident, the same can be received. Accordingly, C.M.P. 18844 of 1998 is allowed. Further, the Tribunal itself has admitted that the accident had taken place while it was let out to the MMWSSB for carrying water to the public.

6. The learned counsel Mr. N. Rosi Naidu, cited the following decisions in support of his contentions; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Ramulamma, 1989 Acc CJ 596 (Andh Pra), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadshya K. Samal, 1988 Acc CJ 540 : 1988 AIR(Orissa) 229), Muthu Thangiah Thevar Rice Mill Ooranipuram, Orathanad Taluk (Thanjavur District) v. Mariyayee, 1997 TNLJ 172 : 1997 AIHC 3836) : (1997) 8 Supreme 171 : Rajasthan State Rd. Trpt. Corpn. v. Kailash Nath Kothari and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anil Mathew, 1994 Acc CJ 622 (SC).

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. P. Rathindurai, vehemently contended that the Insurance Company is liable. The vehicle in question is meant for carrying goods. Therefore, when water was carried, there is no contravention of the condition of the policy. The learned counsel further contended that only when a condition which is inconsistent when Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is violated, yet still, the Insurance Company will be liable. The learned counsel made the submissions on the cross objection which he has preferred, as according to the learned counsel, the promotion prospect of the deceased was not taken into account in fixing the income.

8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has found that the tractor which belonged to the third respondent herein was let on hire in favour of the MMWSSB for carrying drinking water to be supplied to the people in Madras City. But, it has held that the mere description in the Policy that the tractor is meant for agriculture purpose would not automatically absolve the Insurance Company from liability as