Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2302
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J
AJMER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SMT. GIRJA DEVI AND ORS. – Respondent
MISC. APPEAL No. 177 of 2005 | MISC. APPEAL No. 181 of 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Om Prakash Singhal
For the Respondents: Smt. Meena Singhal, Shri Mudit Goswami
Negligence cannot be presumed solely based on the absence of a driving license; it requires evidence of rashness or negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 147 and 168 - Negligence - The Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company, stating the tractor was not used for agricultural purposes. The court found this reasoning flawed, asserting that agricultural vehicles can be on roads for legitimate purposes. (Paras 6, 15)
(B) Contributory Negligence - The court ruled that absence of a driving licence does not automatically imply contributory negligence, emphasizing that negligence must be proven through evidence and not assumed. (Paras 7, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a fatal accident involving the deceased who was struck by a tractor while riding his motorcycle. The claimants sought compensation for loss of income and other damages. (Paras 4, 16)
Findings of Court:
The court found the Claims Tribunal erred in its conclusions regarding contributory negligence and the income assessment of the deceased. The court held the Insurance Company liable to compensate the claimants. (Paras 15, 35)
Issues: The primary issues were whether the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes and the validity of the contributory negligence claim against the deceased. (Paras 6, 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that mere absence of a driving licence is insufficient for establishing contributory negligence and highlighted the need for clear evidence of negligence. (Paras 12, 14)
Result: MA. No.177/2005 is allowed; MA. No.181/2005 is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident caused by a tractor striking the deceased. (Para 4 , 16) |
| 2. negligence cannot be presumed without evidence. (Para 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. court modifies compensation based on findings. (Para 35 , 36) |
ORDER
By this common order, MA. No.177/2005 filed by owner & MA.No.181/2005 filed by claimants shall be decided.
2. Both the Misc. Appeals have been filed against the Award dated 08.11.2004 passed by Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seondha, District Datia (M.P.) in MACC No.11/2003.
3. M.A. No.177/2005 has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against exoneration of the Insurance Company whereas M.A. No.181/2005 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount.
4. According to the claimants, deceased Omprakash had gone to Seondha on 28.08.2002 on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP07-A-1028. While he was coming back to village Cheena, it is alleged that the driver of the tractor bearing Registration No.MP32-M-1965 by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner dashed deceased Omprakash, as a result Omprakash sustained grievous injuries and he died. The information of incident was given by complainant and Crime No.93/2002 was registered and the charge-sheet was filed.
MA. No.177/2005
5. The Claims Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that since the accident took place on the road, therefore, it is clear that the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes.
6. The aforesaid observation made by the Claims Tribunal cannot be accepted. It is true that the tractor is meant for use of the agricultural purposes. However, for agricultural purposes the tractor has to come on road and it cannot be said that once the delivery of the tractor is taken from showroom, then it has to be airlifted to the agricultural field and the tractor has to remain for all times to come in agricultural field only. Transportation of crop on a trolley with the help of tractor to the Krishi Upaj Mandi or to the place of sale is also a part of the agricultural activities. Transportation of fertilizer, seeds etc. is also a part of agricultural activities. Unless and until the tractor is shown to be involved in commercial activities it cannot be said that since the tractor was on the road, therefore, it was being used for the purposes other than the agricultural purposes. Accordingly, the exoneration of the Insurance Company on the ground that the tractor was being plied on the road and therefore it was being used for the purposes other than the agricultural purposes is misconceived and it is hereby quashed.
7. It is next contended by counsel for appellant that the Claims Tribunal has applied the principle of contributory negligence merely on the ground that the deceased who was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP07-A-1028 was not having driving licence.
8. Considered the aforesaid submission made by counsel for appellant.
9. Counsel for appellant was repeatedly requested to cite judgments passed by the Supreme Court to the effect that absence of driving licence by itself is not sufficient to hold that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence. It is shocking that counsel for appellant even did not pray for a few minutes to search out the judgments. Whenever a case file is accepted by the lawyer, it is expected that he shall prepare the case to the best of his abilities and shall make every endeavour to protect the interest of his client but in the present case this Court had given an indication to the counsel for appellant that recently also the Supreme Court has held that mere absence of driving licence by itself is not sufficient to draw an inference that the deceased was negligent and accordingly the counsel for appellant was requested to bring that judgment, still he did not respond.
10. Be that whatever it may be.
11. Merely because the counsel for the parties did not argue the matter, this Court cannot ignore the law laid down by the Supreme Cour
