Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, CJ.
Manglesh v. Jaykishan (Since Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Another
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 279 of 2004 (Jabalpur); Decided on 14.1.2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 168 -- tractor attached with thresher -- hand of claimant injured in thresher -- tractor insured -- thresher not insured -- insurer liable only if policy exists and no liability is fastened on owner-- in absence of policy, insurer cannot be held liable to satisfy award -- Tribunal rightly fast ened liability on owner of machine. [Paras 4 and 5]
eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 168 & VªSDVj ls FkSzlj tqM+k gqvk & nkosnkj dk gkFk FkSz'kj ls {kfrxzLr & VªSDVj chfer & FkSz'kj chfer ugha & chekdrkZ dsoy rc nk;h tc ikWfylh vfLrRo esa gks rFkk Lokeh ij dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha Mkyk x;k gks & ikWfylh ds vHkko esa chekdrkZ dks vf/kfu.kZ; dh rqf"V ds fy, nk;h vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vf/kdj.k us ;a= ds Lokeh ij nkf;Ro Bhd gh MkykA ¼iSjk 4 ,oa 5½
ORDER
1. The case of the claimant is that on 29.3.2002 when he was working in the tractor bearing No. M.P. 08 F 5819 in the field. The tractor was attached with the thresher. An accident occurred and the left hand of the claimant was injured. He was admitted to Padhar hospital where his left hand was amputated from the wrist. Therefore, the instant claim petition was filed seeking for compensation.
2. The Tribunal by the impugned award granted Rs.1,07,000/-(One Lac and Seven Thousand only) to the claimant and held the owner of the thresher to be liable to satisfy the award. Questioning the same, the owner is in appeal.
3. The plea of the appellant is that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award. That he is the owner of the tractor as well as thresher and therefore, the insurance policy covers both the vehicle as well as thresher.
4. The learned counsel for the insurer on the contrary contends that these are two different machines altogether. One is a tractor which has been insured, the other is thresher, which has not been insured. Even though the appellant is the owner of the thresher, he has failed to obtain an insurance policy for the same. The evidence of the administrative officer (NW-2) would clearly indicate that the thresher was not insured. In the absence of insurance of thresher, the owner becomes liable to satisfy the award.
5. Having heard the learned counsel, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal that calls for any interference. The insurer would become liable only if a policy exists and there is no liability fastened on the owner. In the instant case, there is absence of policy itself. In the absence of a policy the insurer cannot be held liable to satisfy the award. It is the owner of the vehicle or the machine that is liable for any injury that has occurred due to the same. The Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence and material on record and fastened the liability on the owner of the machine. Hence, I do not find any good ground to entertain this appeal.
6. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
In the absence of an insurance policy, the owner of a machine is liable for any injury caused by the machine, and the insurer can only be held liable if a policy exists.
The main legal point established is that the attachment of a thrasher to an insured vehicle constitutes 'use of vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, making the insurance company liable for compensa....
The onus is on the Insurance Company to prove the insurance policy terms and conditions, and the liability of the insurance company in accidents involving threshers attached to tractors.
The insurance company is required to pay compensation to the claimant despite not being liable to indemnify the owner due to policy breaches, establishing a precedent for similar cases.
Insurance companies are not liable to indemnify for claims involving passengers if the vehicle was not authorized for passenger transport.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company for paying compensation is determined based on the interpretation of the definition of the vehicle invo....
Insurer's appeal admission via affidavit that policy covered third-party liability for tractor and trailer shifts liability to insurer under Section 149 MV Act, overriding tribunal's finding of no co....
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
