IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 17 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 1767 of 2011 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus PRITAM SINGH KAKODIYA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri D.N. Shukla - Advocate for the appellant.

None for respondents.

ORDER The present Misc. Appeal has been preferred invoking the provisions of Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle challenging the award dated 16/11/2010 passed in MVC No.191/2009 by Learned 12th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present lis are that the accident occurred on 16.01.2008, and the deceased, Sukhdev @ Sukhram, was barefoot at the time of the incident. The offending Tractor bearing No.MP-22-AA-0857 was being driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with the appellant, herein. The injured was taken to hospital and due to serious injures on his leg he died on 22/04/2008. After the registration of FIR the investigation was set into motion and the charge-sheet was filed.

3. The legal representatives of the deceased approached the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation by filing claim petition. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidence and documents on record, partly allowed the claim petition vide order dated 16/11/2010.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company. The sole contention made in the appeal and question arise from the appeal is as under :

When the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 3 has held that the vehicle in question has been used in violation of the terms of the policy as the vehicle is an agricultural vehicle and insured for agricultural purpose then effect ?

This issue has been raised through effective arguments, submitting that the question regarding the award amount to be paid by the insurance company and thereafter recovered from the owner has already been referred to a Larger Bench. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni & Ors., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 785.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the arguments by submitting that the order is correct and deserves to be followed in its true spirit. It has also been submitted that the controversy has already come to rest by the subsequent judgments passed on the issue in hand.

6. With the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record and also looking to the fact that no other ground is being raised, the present appeal is decided with following consideration.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case it is observed that the learned MACT has rightly issued direction of pay and recover from the driver and owner. A reference to the following decisions would be fruitful at this stage:

A. In the case of Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 650, it is held in paragraphs 12 to 14 as under: -

"12. The above reference in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of on 17-9-2013 [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2018) 9 SCC 657] by the three-Judge Bench keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case.

13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni, (2009) 8 SCC 785 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 568 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 943] has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733 followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 142] and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insuran