An insurance company is not liable for compensation when the deceased was traveling on the engine of a tractor, as such vehicles are not meant for passengers, and doing so constitutes a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions.

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 27.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 23/2015, whereby the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,94,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization, fastening the liability upon the Non-Applicants jointly and severally. The Tribunal further held that Non-Applicant No.3, being the Insurance Company (Appellant herein) is primarily liable to pay the compensation.

2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 01.01.2014, Milan @ Tikleshwar Maitri (deceased hereinafter), aged about 30 years, had gone to village Bhedwan for paddy threshing work on daily wages. While returning home on foot at about 7:30 PM, he stood near the field of Narsingh Patel to board a Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No. CG-13-L-7028 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”). It is alleged that Non-applicant No. 1 - Tarachand (Respondent No.6 herein) was driving the said offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, upon reaching a curved portion of the road, suddenly turned it, due to which, the offending vehicle overturned. As a result, the deceased was crushed under the offending vehicle and sustained fatal injuries, leading to his death on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by Non-applicant No.2- Chandrashekhar and insured with Non-applicant No.3- IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited.

3. Upon the claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 39,15,000/-, it was, inter alia, pleaded that at the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month by working as a labourer and also by doing agricultural work. The learned Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, passed the award as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, fastening liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company without proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that although the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant/Insurance Company on the date of the accident, but the deceased was travelling in the said offending vehicle and the offending vehicle, being a tractor, was not meant for carrying passengers. The deceased was allegedly sitting on the engine of the tractor and, therefore, was not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, amounting to a breach of the policy conditions. He also submits that the final report, FIR and merg intimation (Exs. P-1 to P-3), filed by the police against the driver of the offending vehicle and relied upon by the claimants themselves, clearly reveals that at the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. In the