Back
Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability for Tractor Passenger Under One Plus One
The has delivered a significant ruling in motor accident claims, holding that an insurance company cannot deny liability for the death of a passenger on a tractor when the insurance policy itself mentions a of "1+1", even if the specifies a single seat for the driver only.
Justice Prashant Kumar, presiding over a single bench, dismissed an appeal by the against an award of Rs.4.84 lakh by the , in favor of the claimants.
The Accident and the Claim
On , Sadhuram Paswan, aged 35, was travelling as a rider on a tractor bearing registration number UP42R2937. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently at high speed when the driver suddenly applied brakes. Paswan fell off and came under the wheel, sustaining fatal injuries. He died on the spot.
The deceased's family—his wife Vijay Kumari and others—filed a claim petition before the , seeking compensation of Rs.55.50 lakh, stating that Paswan was engaged in the business of buying and selling wheat straw. The Tribunal, after evaluating evidence, found the driver negligent, held the insurance valid, and awarded Rs.4.84 lakh with 7% simple interest.
Insurer's Argument: 'RC Says One, Policy Says 1+1 is a Typo'
The insurance company appealed, arguing that the tractor's clearly stated its as one person (the driver). The policy, which mentioned "1+1", was allegedly a typographical error. Counsel for the insurer, , contended that no was charged for any passenger and that the covered only the driver. She relied on the precedent in to argue that the deceased was an , thus the company was not liable.
Claimants' Stand: 'Policy Terms Must Prevail'
Opposing the appeal, , holding brief for the claimants, argued that the insurance policy explicitly covered "1+1", i.e., driver and one passenger. Since the policy was issued after receiving , the company could not wriggle out of its liability. She also submitted that the case fell under , which covers liability for death or injury to any person including the owner of goods or his authorized representative.
Court's Analysis: No Breach of Policy
Justice Prashant Kumar examined the sole issue of whether there was a . He found none. The deceased was on the tractor for buying and selling wheat straw, which the court held was an agricultural activity, not a commercial use.
Crucially, the court noted that the insurance policy itself recorded the as "1+1". The company could not now claim that the policy was incorrectly issued. The court rejected the argument that the —an internal document—could override the policy terms.
Key Observations
"The Insurance Company cannot now turn around and contend that the insurance policy issued by it was incorrect and the ought to have been restricted to the driver alone. Having received the and issued the insurance policy specifically mentioning the as “1+1”, the Insurance Company cannot take a contrary stand to deny the on that ground."
"Hence the insurance company now cannot say that they are not liable for payment of compensation for the death of the passenger. Therefore, the appellant having insured the vehicle as (1+1) cannot wriggle out of its liability."
Verdict: Appeal Dismissed
Finding no illegality or irregularity in the Tribunal's award, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It ordered the statutory amount of Rs.25,000 deposited by the appellant to be transmitted to the Tribunal for adjustment against the compensation.
This judgment reinforces that insurance companies are bound by the terms of the policies they issue. A discrepancy between the and the policy will not allow the insurer to escape liability, especially when the has been accepted on the basis of broader .
