IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, GWALIOR BENCH
G.D. SAXENA, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Vimla Devi and Others - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 693 of 2004
Decided On : 03-09-2013
Motor Vehicle Act 1988 - Insurance Liability - 147(1), 147(5), 163A - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others (2004) 8 SCC 697, Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others (2008) ACJ 1043, S.M. Sharmila Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others (2012) 2 SCC 770
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against an Award granting compensation to the claimants of a deceased who died in a tractor accident. The Insurance Company contended that it was not liable for the compensation due to the violation of the insurance policy terms. The claimants sought enhancement of the awarded compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Insurance Company was not liable for the compensation as the tractor was not being plied in accordance with the policy terms. The court also enhanced the compensation amount based on loss of dependency and other admissible heads.
Issues: 1. Liability of the Insurance Company for compensation 2. Enhancement of the awarded compensation amount
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Insurance Company was not liable for compensation due to the breach of the insurance policy terms. The court also determined the enhanced compensation amount based on loss of dependency and other admissible heads.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed, absolving the company from the liability of payment of the original award amount. The court also allowed the cross-objection and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 2,27,000 with simple interest.
G.D. Saxena, J.
This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company/appellant against an Award dated 29th June 2004 in Claim Case No. 36/2003 passed by the Fourth Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind (M.P.), awarding thereby compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- in favour of the claimants of deceased Narsingh Tyagi, who died in an accident occurred on 24th February 2001 at Bhind-Porsa road while travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. RJ05-IR 4586, due to rash and negligent driving by Narenrda Singh Jat (Respondent No. 1 in claim petition) owned by Sher Singh (Respondent No. 2 in claim petition) and insured with appellant-Insurance Company. Admitted facts of the case are that on 24th February 2001 at about 4 p.m., deceased Narsingh Tyagi was travelling on the mudguard of Tractor No. RJ05-IR 4586 from Kanadhar village to Bandokhar. At Porsa Road, due to negligent on the part of the aforesaid driver, the vehicle turned turtle, as a result, deceased Narsingh who was sitting on the mudguard died by pressing under the tractor. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the driver Narendra Singh indicating that deceased was driving the tractor and due to his reckless driving, the tractor turned turtle and he died in such an accident. During inquiry, the fact came to the notice that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle and due to his act, the accident caused. Accordingly, the crime was registered against the driver by the police and a charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court having jurisdiction. It is stated that the deceased Narsingh aged 35 years was an earning member in the family and by doing agricultural and other job of animal husbandry and milk selling, he used to earn Rs. 4000/-. In these circumstances, the claim was moved before the learned MACT, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,85,000/-. The learned tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties present before it, granted compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- against the owner as well as the Insurance company. Being aggrieved by the award passed on the principles of joint and several liability, this appeal came to be filed by the Insurance Company.
2. The contention of the Insurance company/appellant is that the Award so passed under appeal is against the settled principles of law and thus is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the deceased was travelling in a tractor which was meant for neither passengers nor for carrying goods and is registered as a vehicle for agricultural purposes. The insurance of the vehicle was against third party and as per terms of the policy, the insurance company was not liable for death or injuries of such passengers travelling on tractor as no premium was paid for death or injury of the person other than driver. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company may be exonerated form the liability of payment of award amount.
3. The claimants/respondent, by way of cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. submitted that the learned tribunal while considering the award of compensation did not consider properly facts regarding loss of dependency and the income of deceased. It is further submitted that no compensation in other admissible heads was awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the cross-objection, the award amount may properly be enhanced.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case with case laws and the relevant provisions.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, following questions arise for consideration of this appeal:-
(i) Whether, the Insurance Company is entitled for exoneration of the liability of satisfying the award amount because the offending vehicle was carrying the deceased in vi
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.