Back
2004(1) JLJ 110
(FULL BENCH)
S.S. Jha, Chandresh Bhushan and Rajendra Menon, JJ.
Jugal Kishore and another v. Ramlesh Devi and others
Misc. Appeals No. 44 and 138 of 1999; Decided on 26.9.2003.
These appeals are referred to the larger Bench by the Division Bench to determine the question:
Whether insurance company can be held liable in the case of death or bodily injuries caused in a motor accident involving a tractor which was insured only for agricultural purpose and the sitting capacity was also shown to be one only but used for different purpose at the time of the accident? [Para 1
Held: The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued, shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, in any breach of policy conditions. [Para 20
If the vehicle is used for the purpose other than for which it is insured other than the conditions mentioned in section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the victim and will be entitled to recover the amount from the insured pointing out the breach of the conditions of policy. [Para 22
It is held that the judgment in the case of Pushpadevi [2002(2) TAC 374] lays down the correct law in respect of the accidents which have occurred after 1994 amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. 2000(1) MPWN 47 (SC), 2002(2) TAC 374 and 2001 ACJ 843 (SC) followed. 2000 ACJ 393, 1999(1) MPLJ NOC 1 and M.A. No. 86/92 overruled. 2001(3) MPLJ 548 approved. [Para 23
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 149(2) (a) (ii) -- driver having licence to drive tractor -- nature of tractor is not changed if trolley or luggage carrier is attached -- licence does not become ineffective thereby. AIR 2001 SC 3356 followed. [Paras 9 & 15
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 149(2) (a) (i) -- passengers carried in dumper against condition in policy -- it is not a fundamental breach of policy -- owner cannot be denied indemnification in case of accident. 1997(2) JLJ 160 relied on. [Para 10
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 149(2) (a) (ii) -- driver not having valid licence -- insurance company is still liable to indemnify the insured against third party -- the company in such case may be able to recover the amount so paid from the insured.
Where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of section 149(2) (a) (ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive.
More importantly, even in such a case, the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. 1987 JLJ 612 (SC) and 2003(1) BLJ 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1292 followed. 1996 ACJ 1044 referred to. [Paras 11 & 4
(5) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 95(2) -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 147 and 149 -- offending vehicle comprehensively insured -- though liability of insurer was unlimited but limited to the third party as higher premium was not taken from the insured. 2003(2) BLJ 51 = 2002(2) SCC 278 followed. [Para 12
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 95 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 147(1) -- words ‘any person‘ mentioned in policy -- expression ‘any person‘ would include the owner of the car who is gratuitously travelling in the car. AIR 1998 SC 1433 followed. [Para 13
(7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 145(g) -- words ‘third party‘ -- includes the ‘Government‘ and everyone who is not contracted in insurance policy, i.e., insured and insurer. 1996 JLJ 117 approved. [Paras 14, 17 & 18
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 149¼2½ rFkk 147 ¼lu~ 1994 es ;Fkk la‘kksf/kr½ && vijk/k esa varoZfyr ;ku lE;d~ :i ls chfer && nq?kZVuk lu~ 1994 ds la‘kks/kku ds i‘pkr~ ?kVh && ikfylh dh ‘krksZa dk Hkax && chekdrkZ] chfer O;fDr dh {kfriwfrZ djus ds fy, vkSj mlls jde olwyus ds fy, nk;hA ;g vihysa [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks fuEufyf[kr iz‘u dk vo/kkj.kk djus ds fy, funsZf‘kr dh xbZ gSA D;k chek daiuh ,sls VsªDVj ls tks dsoy d`f"kd iz;kstu ds fy, chfer Fkk vkSj ftldh cSBkus dh {kerk Hkh dsoy ,d n‘kkbZ xbZ Fkh fdarq ftls nq?kZVuk ds le; fHké iz;kstu ds fy, iz;qDr fd;k x;k Fkk] gqbZ eksVj nq?kZVuk esa dkfjr e`R;q ;k ‘kkjhfjd {kfr ds ekeys esa nk;h BgjkbZ tk ldrh gS\ ¿ iSjk 1À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % chekdrkZ vkSj chfer O;fDr ikfylh esa of.kZr ‘krksZa ls vkc) gS vkSj ;fn ikfylh dh fdlh ‘krZ dk vfrya?ku gksrk gS rc chekdrkZ chfer O;fDr ds izfr nk;h ugha gSA fdarq tkjh fd, x, chek izek.ki= ds dkj.k tks chekdrkZ ijO;fDr dks izfrdj lanÙk djus ds fy, dkuwuh rkSj ij nk;h cuk;k x;k gS og ikfylh dh fdlh Hkh ‘krZ dk Hkax gksus ij chfer O;fDr ls ij&OfDr dks lanÙk jde olwy djus dk gdnkj gksxkA ¿ iSjk 20À eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149¼2½ eas mfYyf[kr ‘krksZa ds vfrfjDr] ;fn ;ku dk mi;ksx ml iz;kstu ds fy, fd;k tkrk gS ftlds fy, og chfer gS rks chek daiuh vkgr O;fDr dks {kfriw.kZ ds fy, nk;h gS rFkk og ikfylh dh ‘krksZa ds Hkkx dk mYys[k dj ds chfer O;fDr ls jde olwyus dh gdnkj gSA ¿ iSjk 22À vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd iq"iknsoh ¿ 2002¼2½ Vh ,l lh 374À ds ekeys esa fn, x, fu.kZ; esa mu nq?kZVukvksa ds ckjs esa lgh fof/k vf/kdfFkr dh xbZ gS tks eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e esa lu~ 1994 ds la‘kks/ku ds i‘pkr~ gqbZ gSA 2000¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l ¼mPpre U;k-½ 2002¼2½ Vh ,l lh 374 vkSj 2001 , lh ts 843 ¼,l lh½ vuqlfjrA 2000 , lh ts 393] 1999¼1½ ,e ih ,y ts ,u vks lh 1 vkSj izdh.kZ vihy Ø- 86@92 myVs x,A 2001¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 548 vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 23À ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 149¼2½ ¼d½
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 149¼2½ ¼d½
(i) && ikfylh dh ‘krZ ds izfrdwy Maij esa ;k=h ys tkuk && ikfylh dk ewyHkwr Hkax ugha gS && nq?kZVuk dh fLFkfr esa Lokeh {kfriwfrZ ls oafpr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA 1997¼2½ ts ,y ts 160 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10À¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 149¼2½ ¼d½
(ii) && pkyd ds ikl fof/kekU; vuqKfIr ugha && fQj Hkh chek daiuh ijO;fDr ds fo#) chfer O;fDr dh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, nk;h gS && ,sls ekeys esa daiuh bl izdkj lanÙk jde chfer O;fDr ls olwy dj ldrh gSAtgk¡ Lokeh us viuk lek/kku dj fy;k gS fd pkyd ds ikl vuqKfIr gS vkSj og l{kerk ls xkM+h pyk gj gS] ogk¡ /kkjk 149¼2½ ¼d½
(ii) Hkax ugha gksxhA rc chek daiuh nkf;Ro ls eqDr ugha gksxhA ;fn varrksxRok izdV gksrk gS fd vuqKfIr tkyh Fkh rks chek aiuh rc rd nk;h cu jgsxh tc rd ;g lkfcr ugha dj fn;k tk, fd Lokeh@chfer O;fDr dks Kkr Fkk ;k mlus ns[k fy;k Fkk fd vuqKfIr tkyh gS vkSj fQj Hkh mlus ml O;fDr dks xkM+h pykus nhA blls Hkh vf/kd egRoiw.kZ gS fd ,sls ekeys esa Hkh chek daiuh funksZ"k ijO;fDr ds izfr nk;h jgsxh] fdarq og chfer O;fDr ls olwy dj ldsxhA 1987 ts ,y ts 612 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk 2003¼1½ ch ,y ts 145 ¾ , vkb vkj 2003 ,l lh 1292 vuqlfjrA 1996 , lh ts 1044 fufnZ"VA ¿ iSjk 11 ,oa 4À ¼5½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 95¼2½ && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 147 rFkk 149 && vijk/k esa varoZfyr ;ku dk O;kid chek && chekdrkZ dk nkf;Ro vlhfer fdarq ijO;fDr rd lhfer Fkk D;kasfd O;fDr ls vf/kd izhfe;e ugha fy;k x;kA 2003¼2½ ch ,y ts 51 ¾ 2002¼2½ ,l lh lh 278 vuqlfjrA
¿ iSjk 12À
¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 95 && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 147¼1½ && ikfylh esa *dksbZ O;fDr* ‘‘kCnksa dk mYys[k && vfHkO;fDr *dksbZ O;fDr* esa dkj dk Lokeh lfEefyr gksxk tks dkj es fu%‘kqYd ;k=k dj jgk gSA , vkb vkj 1998 ,l lh 1433 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 12À
¼7½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 145¼N½ && ‘‘kCn *ijO;fDr* ljdkj vkSj izR;sd og O;fDr lfEefyr gS tks chek ikfylh esa lafonkd`r ugha gS] vFkkZr~ chfer O;fDr vkSj chekdrkZA 1996 ts ,y ts 117 vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 14] 17 ,oa 18À
Jha, J. -- 1. Both these appeals are referred to the Larger Bench by the Division Bench to determine the question :
Whether insurance company can be held liable in the case of death or bodily injuries caused in a motor accident involving a tractor which was insured only for agricultural purpose and the sitting capacity was also shown to be one only but used for different purpose at the time of the accident?
2. Opposite view has been taken by two Division Benches which resulted into the reference before this Bench. In the case of Baburam v. Om Prakash and others [2000 ACJ 393], it is held that in such circumstances, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the insurer. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Sukhanandan v. Oriental Insurance Co. and others [1999(1) TAC 24] and in the case of Ramji Lal and others v. Omkar Lal and others, M.A. No. 86/92 decided on 7.1.2003. However, contrary view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi v. Kamal Singh [2002(2) TAC 374]. In this case, it is held that even if the tractor is used for the purpose other than agricultural or forestry, insurance company 'is liable to pay entire compensation which may, however, be recovered by the insurance company from the owner (insured). In the light of the aforesaid contrary view of the Division Benches, the matter is referred to Larger Bench.
3. Shri K.N. Gupta, Advocate appearing for the claimants submitted that the Act No. 54/94 section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been amended with effect from 14.11.1994. He submitted that in the light of the amendment in section 147 insurance company is bound to indemnify the third party. He submitted that the intention of the legislature is explicit and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. He submitted that in the facts of the case, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [2003(1) MPWN 60 = (2003) 2 SCC 223] is not applicable to this case. This judgment relates to the cases which were prior to amending Act of 1994. He submitted that it is clear from para 2 of the aforesaid judgment that three categories of the cases have been defined and it is mentioned that in the case of Asha Rani (supra) cases which fall in the category No. (ii) have been decided. As regards cases in category No. (i) and (iii) namely the cases which are covered by Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the accidents occurred after 1994 amendment are concerned, have been finally adjudicated in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [2002(1) MPWN 87 = (2001) 6 SCC 713].
4. Counsel for the claimants then invited attention to Rule 97 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that under sub-rule (5) of Rule 97 passengers can be carried in the trolley of the tractor. He submitted that even in the cases where the driver of the vehicle is found to have no valid licence, then also as held by the Apex Court the insurance company is liable to indemnify the victim or members of the family of the victim. In support of his contention he referred to the judgment in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru [2003(1) BLJ 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1292] and Sohan Lal Passi [1996 ACJ 1044].
5. Counsel for the claimants further submitted that third party would include the passengers travelling in the trolley. He submitted that the contract is between the insurer and the insured and any other person who is victim of the accident is a third party to the contract. Insurance Company is bound by statutory liability to pay compensation to victim. Insurance company is bound to idemnify the victim and cannot avoid its liability on the ground of breach of the conditions of the policy.
6. It is further contended by the counsel for the claimants that once the trolley is attached to the tractor it acquires the status of goods carriage and any
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
