S. S. JHA, S. SAMVATSAR, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by National Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging its liability to pay compensation.

( 2 ) IN this case, counsel for appellant submitted that deceased Onkar Singh met with an accident on 12. 7. 1989. Onkar singh was travelling in a tractor bearing no. CPG 8357. The said tractor was insured with the appellant company. Tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner which caused death.

( 3 ) THE counsel for appellant submitted that the incident occurred after enforcement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and before amendment in Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured as tractor was being driven in violation of the condition of the policy. Counsel for appellant referred to a judgment in Ramji Lal v. Omkar Lal, 2004 acj 238 (MP ). This court while referring to a judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), considered the question and held that the owner of the vehicle carrying passenger must pay premium for covering risk of passengers. If a liability other than limited liability is to be enhanced under an insurance policy, additional premium is required to be paid. Court further held that in the insurance policy tractor is insured for the use of agricultural and forest purposes and in the policy it was mentioned that policy shall not cover: (i) Use for hire or reward or for racing pacemaker, reliability trial or speed testing; (ii) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted by law.

( 4 ) IN the evidence of witnesses, it is stated that deceased was travelling in tractor and was going to Sangoli and the tractor overturned which resulted in his death. In para 3 PW 1 Javitri admitted that he was going in a marriage party. Thus, the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes but was carrying passengers for the marriage party. In the light of Asha Rani judgment, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), the vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy of insurance and accident occurred before the amendment of 1994. Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

( 5 ) IN the result, appeal of the insurance company is allowed and it is held that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured and no award can be passed against the insurance company. However, the owner and the driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Cross-objection is filed by the claimants against the respondents. Cross-objection between co-respondents is not maintainable since insurance company is held not liable to indemnify the insured therefore in appeal of the insurance company crossobjection by claimants is not maintainable as the cross-objection is against the corespondents (owner and the driver of the vehicle ). Therefore, the cross-objection is dismissed as not maintainable. Award is modified and it is held that the owner and driver are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest as determined by the Claims Tribunal. Insurance company is absolved from the liability to pay compensation. Appeal succeeds and is allowed without any order as to costs. The amount deposited by the insurance company shall be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal allowed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document