PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and M.L.Koul JJ.
United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Versus
Pritpal Singh
First Appeal from the Order No. 1392 of 1995,
Decided On : JUNE 1, 1995
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 2(28), 2(39), 2(44), 2(46) - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - ACCIDENT INVOLVING TRACTOR AND TRAILER - LIABILITY OF INSURANCE COMPANY - VALIDITY OF DRIVER'S LICENCE.
Fact of the Case:
An accident occurred involving a tractor and a trailer, resulting in the death of Smt. Jasbir Kaur. Her heirs filed a claim petition for compensation, which was contested by the insurance company on the grounds that the trolley was not insured with the company and that the driver's license was not valid.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver and awarded compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal also rejected the insurance company's contentions regarding the insurance coverage of the trolley and the validity of the driver's license.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for an accident involving a tractor and a trailer, even if the trolley was not insured with the company. 2. Whether the driver's license was valid, despite the absence of the Regional Transport Officer's signature.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "motor vehicle" in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 includes a trailer, and therefore, a tractor and a trailer together constitute a transport vehicle. 2. The evidence produced by the insurance company was insufficient to show that the driver's license was not valid.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed, and the award of compensation by the Tribunal was upheld.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 6.1.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, the insurance Company has preferred this appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
2. The accident in relation to which the claim petition was filed by the heirs of Smt. Jasbir Kaur took place on 7.10.1992 near Dhanas bridge, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Smt. Jasbir Kaur, who was working as Lecturer in the Government Senior Secondary School, Dhanas, and who at the relevant time going on her Kinetic Honda Scooter from Sector 35 to the School, was struck, by a tractor from behind. In the accident Smt. Jasbir Kaur sustained injuries and died. Her heirs (respondents 1 to 3) filed a claim petition for award of Rs. 20,00,000/- by way of compensation. The owner and the driver of the tractor contested the claim, on the ground that the deceased was guilty of negligent driving and her two-wheeler had struck at the back side on the trolley. The insurance company contested the claim on the ground that Sant Singh was not owner of the vehicle and Nachatar Singh was not qualified to be a driver of the vehicle.
3. The Tribunal held that the accident did take place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Nachhatar Singh. It further held that income of late Smt. Jasbir Kaur was Rs. 3294/- per month. By excluding 1/3rd of the salary towards her own expenses the Tribunal declared that the annual dependency was Rs. 26,352/-. On this basis, it held that the total compensation payable to the claimants would come to Rs. 3,68,928/-. Lastly, the Tribunal considered the two contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company, namely, that the trolley which was involved in the accident was not insured with the company and that the licence possessed by the driver was not a valid licence. Both these contentions have been rejected by the Tribunal by giving detailed reasons.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record of this appeal. Shri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has reiterated the two contentions which were raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. His first submission is that the accident in dispute took place with the trolley and not with the tractor and as the trolley was not insured with, the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.
5. "Motor Vehicle/Vehicle", "Semi Trailer", "Tractor", and "Tractor" have been defined in Section 2(28), 2(39), 2(44) and 2(46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These definitions are quite relevant for the purpose of this case and, therefore, they are being reproduced below:-
2(28) "Motor Vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty-five cubic centimeters;
2(39) "semi-trailer" means a trailer drawn by a motor vehicle and so constructed that a part of it. is super-imposed on, and a part of its weight is borne by, the drawing vehicle;
2(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not. itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion);
2(46) "trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle."
6. Definition of "Motor vehicle" or "vehicle" is comprehensive so a to include any mechanically Propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and includes a trailer. "Trailer" has been-defined separately but is also included in the definition of the "Motor vehicle"/"vehicle
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.