IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)
P.K. JAISWAL, J.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
BABULAL AND OTHERS - Respondents
M.A. Nos. 2071 of 2004 and 457 of 2005
Decided On : 10-05-2011
Insurance - Liability of Insurance Companies - Motor Vehicles Act - [Agricultural Purpose, Insurance Liability] - [Motor Vehicles Act, Section 2(14); National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 697; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 223; New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 237] - The court discussed the liability of insurance companies in a motor accident case involving a tractor-trolley carrying agricultural produce. The court referred to relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act and previous judgments to determine whether the insurance companies were liable to pay compensation. The court held that carrying agricultural produce for sale in the market amounted to agricultural purpose, making the insurance companies jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained injuries in a tractor-trolley accident and sought compensation from the owner, driver, and insurance companies. The court found that the tractor-trolley was transporting agricultural produce for sale in the market, leading to a dispute over the liability of the insurance companies.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that carrying agricultural produce for sale in the market amounted to agricultural purpose, making the insurance companies jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Issues: Liability of insurance companies in a motor accident case involving a tractor-trolley carrying agricultural produce.
Ratio Decidendi: Carrying agricultural produce for sale in the market amounted to agricultural purpose, making the insurance companies jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the miscellaneous appeals filed by the insurance companies, directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner and driver of the tractor and trolley.
Jaiswal, J.
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2071 of 2004 is filed by the non-applicant No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., being aggrieved by the award dated 30.4.2004, passed by Fifth Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Ratlam, in Claim Case No. 14 of 2003, by which the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000 as compensation for the injuries to the claimant-injured Babulal and directed the non-applicant No. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and non-applicant No. 5, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., to pay the amount of compensation. This order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 457 of 2005, filed by the non-applicant No. 5, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The only question involved in these two appeals is about the liability of the insurance companies.
2. From the perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that on the date of accident, respondent No.1 Babulal alias Babu was travelling in a tractor-trolley bearing registration No. MP 13-3387 and MP 13-KA 8599 respectively. The said tractor-trolley was carrying wheat. The respondent No. 1 Babulal was travelling in the trolley. The driver of the tractor-trolley, the respondent No. 3, drove the said tractor rashly and negligently, due to which tractor-trolley overturned. Respondent No. 1, who was sitting along with other labourers, sustained grievous injuries. It is alleged that on the date of accident, i.e., in the intervening night of 1/2.5.1999, Babulal was sitting in the trolley along with wheat and was going to market for selling the said wheat.
3. The respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition seeking compensation against the owner, driver and the insurance companies of the tractor-trolley for the personal injuries sustained in the accident that occurred in the intervening night of 1/2.5.1999. According to the averments made in the claim petition, on the fateful day respondent No.1 was travelling in the trolley as a labourer. The tractor was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver and, therefore, owner, driver and the insurance companies are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
4. By the impugned award the Claims Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein and awarded jointly and severally compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 against the owner, driver and the insurance companies of the tractor-trolley.
5. According to the claimant he took his companion labourers to village Bhatpachlana for cutting (harvesting) wheat crop. Tractor No. MP 13-3387 belonging to Vikram Singh was taken for carrying/ transporting the wheat, which was being driven by Man Singh, respondent No. 3. The said trolley belonged to Shailendra Singh, respondent No. 4 and was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It was taken on hire by Chandrabhan Singh, respondent No. 2.
6. The respondent No. 2, owner of the tractor, denied the allegation made in the claim application. The insurance company denied their liability on the ground that the driver was not having an effective driving licence and the vehicle was being used contrary to the policy conditions. It was also contended that the vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose with them whereas the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers and for hire and carrying goods. The respondent No. 5 further denied that the trolley was insured with them.
7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the trolley was not insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 5 (in para 33 of the impugned award), but awarded jointly and severally compensation of Rs. 1,80,000 against owner, driver and insurance companies of the tractor and trolley. At the time of accident the tractor bearing registration No. MP 13-3387 was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd.
8. As per statement of claimant Babulal the trolley bearing the registration No. MP 13-KA 8599 w
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others
New India Assurance Company Vs. Shri Satpal Singh and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.