Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, J.
Manglesh Chironji Namdeo – Appellant
Versus
Jaykishan – Respondent
Miscellaneous. Appeal No. 279 of 2004
Decided On : 14-01-2022
Insurance - Liability for Accident - Absence of Insurance Policy for Thresher
Fact of the Case:
The claimant was injured while working with a tractor and thresher, resulting in the amputation of his left hand. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant, holding the owner of the thresher liable. The owner appealed, arguing that the insurer should be liable as the owner of both the tractor and thresher.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the absence of an insurance policy for the thresher made the owner liable for the compensation, as the insurer could only be held liable if a policy existed. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: Liability for compensation in the absence of an insurance policy for the thresher.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of an insurance policy for the thresher made the owner liable for the compensation, as the insurer could only be held liable if a policy existed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the owner was held liable for the compensation due to the absence of an insurance policy for the thresher.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the claimant is that on 29/3/2002 when he was working in the tractor bearing No. M.P. 08F 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.1,07,000.00(One Lakh 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. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
Proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 147 i.e., if the insured had taken a policy covering only third party risk, even then the driver of the vehicle which is insured and if it is a public servi....
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....
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
