New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Ajay

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1993 Supreme(MP) 565

1994 JLJ 515
R.D. Shukla, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay and others
Civil Revn. No. 248 of 1992; against the order of Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 19 of 1991; Decided on 20.9.1993.

Advocates:
Surjeet Singh with V.R. Purohit for applicant; M.L. Agarwal with G.H. Agarwal for non-applicants.

Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S. 115 -- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -- is a civil Court subordinate to High Court -- order of interim award passed by Tribunal -- is revisable by the High Court. 1971 JLJ 903 (FB) and AIR 1993 Raj. 126 relied on. 1992 JLJ 143 (FB), 1992 (I) MPJR 372, 1993 (1) VIBHA 123 and 1988 (II) MPWN 104 discussed. [Paras 10 to 16
       (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- order of interim award -- is revisable by the High Court under S.115 C.P.C. AIR 1993 Raj. 126 and 1971 JLJ 903 (FB) relied on. [Para 14
       (3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 140 -- interim award under -- insurance company in a position to show that terms of policy have been breached -- interim award cannot be made against it.
       This is a case where from the averments of the claimants themselves, it is evident that they were going as a Band Party probably to attend a marriage ceremony which was clearly against the conditions of the Insurance Policy. There is no dispute that tractor and trolley involved in the accident were insured only for agricultural purposes. There is no insurance for carrying the passengers on the trolley and, therefore on the plain reading of claim petition and the reply of Insurance Co. the inference about the liability can be drawn. 1990 ACJ 757 (FB) relied on. 1992 ACT 873 and 1990 JLJ 664 dissented from. [Paras 23 to 25
       ¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & /kkjk 115 & eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k & mPp U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk flfoy U;k;ky; gS & vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr varfje vf/kfu.kZ; dk vkns‘k & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iqujh{k.kh; gSA 1971 ts ,y ts 903 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk , vkb vkj 372] 1993 ¼1½ foHkk 123 rFkk 1988 ¼2½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 104 foosfprA ¿iSjk 10 ls 16

       ¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 140 & varfje vf/kfu.kZ; dk vkns‘k & mPp U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 115 fl-ç-la- ds v/khu iquj.kZ.kh; gSA , vkb vkj 1993 jkt- 126 rFkk 1971 ts ,y ts 903 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14

       ¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 140 & ds v/khu varfje vf/kfu.kZ;&chek daiuh ;g n‘kkZus dh fLFkfr esa fd ikfylh ds fuca/kuksa dk Hkax gqvk gS & mlds fo#) varfje vf/kfu.kZ; ugha fn;k tk ldrkA

       ;g ,slk ekeyk gS ftlesa Lo;a nkosnkjksa ds çdFkuksa ls ;g lqO;Dr gS fd os cSaM eaMyh ds :Ik esa vf/klaHkkO;r% fookg lekjksg esa lfEefyr gksus tk jgs Fks tks fd chek ikfylh dh ‘krks± ds Li"Vr% fo#) FkkA ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd nq?kZVuk esa varxZLr VªSDVj rFkk Vªkyh ek= Ñf"kd ç;kstu ds fy, chekÑr FksA Vªkyh ij ;kf=;ksa dks ogu djus ds fy, dksbZ chek ugha gS vr% nkok vthZ rFkk chek daiuh ds mÙkj ds ljy ikB ls nkf;Ro ds ckjs esa fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gSA 1990 , lh ts 757 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA 1992 , lh ts 873 rFkk 1990 ts ,y ts 664 folEerA ¿iSjk 23 ls 25

ORDER

R.D. Shukla, J.--1. This order shall also govern the disposal of Civil Revisions No. 249/1992, 257/1992, 258/1992, 259/1992 and 260/1992.

(i) C.R. 248/92 arises out of order dated 16.3.92 passed in Claim Case No. 19/91;

(ii) C.R. 249/92 arises out of order dated 16.3.92 passed in Claim Case No. 22/91.

(iii) C.R. 257/92 arises out of order dated 12.3.92 passed in Claim Case No. 21/91;

(iv) C.R. No. 258/92 arises out of order dated 16.3.92 passed in Claim Case No. 1/92;

(v) C.R. No. 259/92 arises out of order dated 16.3.92 passed in Claim Case No. 24/91; and

(vi) C.R. No. 260/92 arises out of order dated 19.3.92 passed in Claim Case No. 20/91.

All these revisions arise out of the orders referred above passed by XVIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore.

2. The brief history of the case is that non-applicant Umraosingh owns a tractor attached with trolley M.P.-09-D-693. It is insured with petitioner who is arrayed as respondent No. 3 i.e. New India Insurance Co. Non-applicant-respondent Kailash was the driver of the tractor.

3. On the date of incident i.e. 16.2.1991 at about 11.25 P.M. the tractor driven by driver Kailash was being taken to village Sigdod. Ajay claimant in Claim Case No. 19/91, Babulal claimant in Claim Case No. 22191, Bahadur claimant in Claim Case No. 21/91, Sattar claimant in Claim Case No. 1/92, Mohad Hussain claimant in claim Case No. 24/91 and Bhagirath (deceased) who was related as son of claimant No.1 and 2 and brother to claimant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and husband of claimant No.6 in Claim Case No. 20/91, were sitting on the trolly attached to the tractor. They were members of a Band Company named as 'New Bharat Band Company'.

4. Due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor it turned turtle and the trolley went up side down. All the claimants sustained injuries. Bhagirath died in consequence thereof.

All the injured persons and the legal representatives of deceased Bhagirath filed claim as above. Thereafter they filed an application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for awarding interim compensation on the principle of 'no fault liability'.

5. Respondent No.3 Insurance Co. (applicant here) filed an objection alongwith the reply to the application of the claimants that the tractor was insured for agricultural work. The claimants and deceased Bhagirath as per their own averments were not labourers of the tractor and were members of a Band Party who were probably hired for giving performance in a Marriage Party and as the tractor was being driven and the passengers were being taken for purpose other than it was insured for, the Insurance Co. is not liable to make any payment.

6. However, learned Claims Tribunal without giving any decision passed an order for payment of Rs. 12,000/- to almost all the injured claimants and Rs. 25,000/- to the legal representatives of deceased Bhagirath. Hence, these Revisions by the Company.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants in all these cases is that from the averments of the claimants it is evident that the tractor was being used for the purpose other than it was insured for; as the injured and deceased were being taken as passengers in the tractor-trolley, it was against the breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. They were the third party also and, therefore, there is no prima facie case in favour of claimants and the legal representatives of Bhagirath. As such, the Company is not liable to make payment

8. As against it learned counsel for the non-applicants in all the cases have vehemently submitted that the Revision does not lies against such order and that elaborate enquiry about the liability cannot be done at this stage. If after the trial it is found that owner of the tractor alone is liable the company may be compensated by directing recovery from the owner of the vehicle.

9. Thus, following questions for determination arise in the case. - (i) as to whether revision against the order o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1993 Supreme(MP) 565

1994 JLJ 515R.D. Shukla, J.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay and others Civil Revn. No. 248 of 1992; against the order of Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 19 of 1991; Decided on 20.9.1993.

Cases Referred (4)

1994 JLJ 515
R.D. Shukla, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay and others
Civil Revn. No. 248 of 1992; against the order of Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 19 of 1991; Decided on 20.9.1993.