Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ashish Shroti, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Munni & Others
Miscellaneous Appeals No. 872 of 2005 and 1137 of 2005 (Gwalior): against the common award dated 25.7.2005 passed by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 19 of 2004;
Decided on 2.4.2025
(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 2(44) -- tractor -- commercial purpose -- whether tractor fitted with trolley was being used for agriculture purpose or for commercial purpose, depends upon facts of individual case. (2004) 8 SCC 697 and (2014) 14 SCC 148 followed. [Para 15
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 2(44) -- tractor -- commercial purpose -- it is nobody’s case that deceased was carrying vegetables of someone else for hire or reward -- he took his own vegetables to market for sale and while returning back, accident took place -- appellant Company has though taken a plea in this regard, however, it failed to substantiate it by leading cogent evidence -- held -- it cannot be said that tractor was being used for commercial purposes at time of accident. (2004) 8 SCC 697 distinguished. 2008(1) JLJ 134, (2018) 5 SCC 762 and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 2009 decided on 21.10.2024 referred to. [Para 16
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 2(28) and 168 -- deceased was traveling in trolley attached with tractor -- he took his own vegetables to market for sale and while returning back, accident took place -- held -- trolley in itself not a motor vehicle and is meant to be drawn by a tractor -- so long as tractor-trolley is being used for agriculture purposes, for which tractor is insured, separate insurance for trolley not required -- no fundamental breach of policy found -- Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation. (2001) 8 SCC 56 followed. 2013 SCC Online All. 13519 and 2023 SCC Online All. 4172 relied on. 2012(1) ACJ 952 (MP), (2017) ACJ 2524, (2009) ACJ 2618, MFA No. 102649 of 2015 (Kar.) and 2021 ACJ 1845 distinguished. [Paras 16, 20 & 22
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 168 -- income of deceased assessed at minimum wages of Rs. 2,423/- per month fixed for unskilled labourer in the year 2004 -- deceased was aged about 25-30 years -- claimants are entitled to compensation towards future prospects at rate of 40% as awarded by Tribunal -- there are five dependants, therefore, deduction would be 1/4th -- claimants entitled to funeral expenses of Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/- as awarded by Tribunal -- also held entitled to consortium at rate of Rs. 15,000/- each -- this additional amount of Rs. 3,86,000/- will earn interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing claim petition till date of actual payment. (2021) 11 SCC 780 followed. [Paras 28 to 30
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 2¼44½ && VªSDVj && okf.kfT;d ç;kstu && Vª‚yh yxs gq, VªSDVj dk mi;ksx —f"k ç;kstu ds fy, fd;k tk jgk Fkk vFkok okf.kfT;d ç;kstu ds fy,] ;g çR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fuHkZj djrk gSA ¼2004½8 ,llhlh 697 rFkk ¼2014½14 ,llhlh 148 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 15
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 2¼44½ && VªSDVj && okf.kfT;d ç;kstu && ;g fdlh dk i{kdFku ugha fd e`rd HkkM+s ;k ikfjJfed ds fy, fdlh vU; dh lfCt;k¡ ys tk jgk Fkk && og Lo;a dh lfCt;k¡ foØ; ds fy, cktkj ys x;k Fkk vkSj ykSVrs le; nq?kZVuk gks xbZ && ;|fi vihykFkhZ daiuh us bl ckjs esa vfHkokd~ fd;k gS] rFkkfi] og rdZiw.kZ lk{; is'k dj ;g fl) ugha dj ldh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd nq?kZVuk ds le; VªSDVj dk mi;ksx okf.kfT;d ç;kstuksa ds fy, fd;k tk jgk FkkA ¼2004½8 ,llhlh 697 çHksfnrA 2008¼1½ ts,yts 134] ¼2018½ 5 ,llhlh 762 rFkk çdh.kZ vihy Ø- 45 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 21-10-2024 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 2¼28½ rFkk 168 && e`rd VªSDVj ls layXu Vª‚yh esa ;k=k dj jgk Fkk && og Lo;a dh lfCt;k¡ foØ; ds fy, cktkj ys x;k Fkk vkSj ykSVrs le; nq?kZVuk gks xbZ && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && Lo;a Vª‚yh eksVj ;ku ugha gksrh rFkk mls VªSDVj }kjk [khapk tkuk vk'kf;r gksrk gS && tc rd VªSDVj&Vª‚yh dk mi;ksx —f"k ç;kstuksa ds fy, fd;k tk jgk gS] ftuds fy, VªSDVj chfer gS] rc rd Vª‚yh ds fy, i`Fkd~ chek visf{kr ugha && i‚fylh dk dksbZ ewy Hkax ugha ik;k x;k && chek daiuh çfrdj lanÙk djus ds vius nkf;Ro ls ugha cp ldrhA ¼2001½ 8 ,llhlh 56 vuqlfjrA 2013 ,llhlh v‚uykbu byk- 13519 rFkk 2023 ,llhlh v‚uykbu byk- 4172 voyafcrA 2012¼1½ ,lhts 952 ¼,eih½] ¼2017½ ,lhts 2524] ¼2009½ ,lhts 2618] ,e,Q, Ø- 102649 lu~ 2015 ¼dukZ-½ rFkk 2021 ,lhts 1845 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 16] 20 ,oa 22
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 && e`rd dh vk; o"kZ 2004 esa vdq'ky Jfed ds fy, fu;r :- 2]423@& çfrekl dh U;wure etnwjh ij fuèkkZfjr && e`rd yxHkx 25-30 o"kZ dh o; dk Fkk && nkosnkj Hkkoh çR;k'kk ds fy, vf/kdj.k }kjk ;Fkk vf/kfu.khZr 40 izfr'kr dh nj ls çfrdj ds gdnkj && vkfJr ik¡p gSa] vr%- dVkSrh 1@4 gksxh && vaR;sf"V O;; ds fy, nkosnkj vf/kdj.k }kjk ;Fkk vf/kfu.khZr :- 15]000@& ds LFkku ij :- 2]000@& ds gdnkj && :- 15]000@& çR;sd dh nj ls nkEiR; oapu ds Hkh gdnkj vfHkfu/kkZfjr && :- 3]86]000@& dh bl vfrfjä jde ij nkok vthZ çLrqr fd, tkus ds fnukad ls okLrfod lank; ds fnukad rd 6izfr'kr çfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt yxsxkA ¼2021½11 ,llhlh 780 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 28 ls 30
ORDER
1. By this common order, MA No.872/2005 filed by the Insurance Company and M.A. No.1137/2005 filed by the claimants are being decided as both the appeals arise out of common Award dated 25.7.2005 passed by 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case No.19/2004.
2. The facts of the case are that on the fateful day i.e. on 1.9.2004, deceased Hakeem @ Dhola was traveling in the trolley attached with the tractor bearing Registration No.MP07-HA-7652 alongwith five others namely- Betal, Rajveer Singh, Hakim Singh, Amar Singh and Kamal Singh, all residents of Village Lakhanpura, Police Station- Billowa, District- Gwalior (M.P.).
3. It is the case of the claimants that they had gone for selling their vegetables in the aforesaid tractor and while returning back to village Lakhanpura, because of rash and negligent driving of the driver, the tractor and trolley turned turtle, due to which, Hakeem @ Dhola died. The aforesaid tractor was owned by one Naval Kishore and was driven by Kamlesh Kushwaha.
4. The claim petition under section 166 & 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the claimants. Claimant No.1- Smt. Munni Devi is the widow while claimant No.2 & 3 are children and claimant No.5 is the mother of the deceased. The claimant No.4 is the father of deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence has passed the impugned award directing the payment of compensation.
5. M.A. No.872/2005 has been filed by the Insurance Company resisting the finding of the Tribunal wherein the liability has been fastened on it.
6. M.A. No.1137/2005 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
M.A. No.872 OF 2005
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company challenged the impugned award mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was not involved in the incident. It is further submitted by him that tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and at the time of incident since the tractor was being used for commercial activity, Insurance Company cannot be held liable. He further submitted that deceased-Hakeem @ Dhola was sitting on Mudguard of the tractor which is impermissible and therefore, since there is breach of terms of policy, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He also submitted that the Insurance policy was only in respect of the tractor and trolley was not covered. He thus submitted that Insurance Company has been wrongly made liable to pay the amount of compensation.
8. Referring to the FIR lodged in respect of the accident, which is marked as Ex. P/2, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that chassis and engine number is mentioned and not registration number of the tractor. He further submitted that property seizure memo marked as Ex. P/4 mentions chassis/engine number alongwith registration number of the tractor. He, thus, submits that description of vehicle is different in the FIR then the one mentioned in property seizure memo Ex. P/4.
9. So far as this ground of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is to be noted that FIR was lodged immediately within one hour of the incident. In clause 7 of the FIR, the make of vehicle in question viz. “Tractor Mahindra B275 D-1” without number is mentioned. In the property seizure memo, same make of vehicle alongiwth registration number of the tractor as also the chassis and the engine number is mentioned. Thus, it cannot be said that in FIR and the property seizure memo, different vehicles are mentioned. Moreso, no such plea was taken by the Insurance company in its written statement. Further, in the statements recorded on behalf of the claimants, it has come in the statement of all the witnesses that the tractor Mahindra DI having registration No.MP07-HA-7652 is the offending vehicle. Learned Claims Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in this regard and recorded the finding that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle. The finding is, thus, based upon pro
The attachment of a trolley to a tractor insured for agricultural purposes does not violate the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Insurance liability remains valid for agricultural vehicles regardless of accidental attachments, as per statutory definitions.
Point of law: Accident claim – Compensation - Involvement of the trolley being used for commercial purpose and having an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses produced before the Tribunal....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation and its recovery rights against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, based on ....
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
