Allowed

National Indurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ram Devi and Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019FAFO/1077/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal against an award granting compensation to claimants for a fatal MACT accident, the High Court held that the appellant insurance company was not liable under the policy as the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes only but used to carry a Barat party.

What did the court decide?

The award regarding the appellant's liability is set aside. The appellant is directed to pay the entire compensation to the claimants.

National Indurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ram Devi and… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 25

¶3

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1077 of 1995

¶4

Appellant :- National Indurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Ram Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K.Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- R.S. Verma,S.K. Mehrotra

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶6

This First Appeal From Order under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by National Insurance Company Limited, Farrukhabad, against Smt. Ram Devi and five others (claimants-respondents), Shiv Pal Singh and two others (owners and driver of HMT Zetor tractor), Smt. Urmila Devi and two others and United India Insurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Devi Road, Mainpuri, against judgment and order dated 8.9.1995 passed by M.A.C.T./ IV Additional District Judge, Etah, in M.A.C. Case No. 2 of 1992, Smt. Ram Devi and others Vs. Shiv Pal Singh and others, whereby a claim of Rs. Two lacs has been awarded against the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. The tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and not for carrying passengers and if the owner and driver of the tractor were carrying passengers/ Barat party in clear breach and violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy and the tractor met with any accident, as alleged, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any compensation and liability, if any, to pay compensation is of the owner and driver of the offending tractor. In the present case, admittedly, the Tractor was insured for agricultural purpose only by the appellant and at the time of accident it was being used for carrying Barat party i.e. a purpose other than agricultural purpose, which was in defiance of terms of policy. Hence, no liability of Insurance Company was there. No accident, as alleged, by the claimants ever took place nor

¶7

¶8

Ram Nath died in any such accident in as much as no first information report of any such accident was ever lodged at any police station nor any post mortem on the body of Ram Nath deceased was conducted nor he was treated at any hospital. Death certificate was issued by Village Pradhan and was not proved at all. Hence, neither accident nor involvement of the tractor was ever established. The owner of the offending tractor in his written statement has admitted that the tractor was never engaged for carrying Baratis on the alleged date and time of accident, it never met with an accident, rather on the alleged date and time of accident it was standing in village Anandpur, district Farrukhabad, for plaughing field and they did not possess any trolley. Hence, this appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and award.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment challenged as well as material placed on record.

¶10

Claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for compensation was filed by claimants Ram Devi, Sanjay Singh, Ajai Pal Singh, Km. Rajnesh, Km. Archana and Km. Neeraj against Shiv Pal Singh, Raghu Pal Singh and Jagpal Singh, all sons of Hakim Singh, (owner of the offending Zetor Tractor), Smt. Urmila Devi and Nathoo Singh, (owner and driver, respectively, of tractor Mahendra 255), Jadunath Singh and National Insurance Company Ltd. with this contention that the deceased was travelling on 8.7.1991 in H.M.T. Zetor tractor/3511 for attending marriage of his cousin Rakesh Singh. Many others were in the marriage party. Few others were travelling in another Mahendra Tractor. HMT Zetor tractor was owned by O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and was being driven by Jagpal Singh, O.P. No. 3, and another Mahendra Tractor was being driven by Natthu

¶11

¶12

Singh, O.P. No. 5. Both of them were driving the tractors rashly and negligently. When these tractors reached near village Agonapur they dashed each other resulting in turning down of trolley attached with HMT Zetor tractor. Deceased Ramnath and others were badly injured and were taken to Government hospital. The information of this accident was sent by Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Aliganj, to Police Station Aliganj, but no report was lodged. Ramnath died and his dead body was brought at home. No autopsy examination or inquest was got conducted. The owners of both the tractors in connivance got the dead body of deceased disposed of for which report was made by the claimant no. 1 to the District Collector and the Superintendent of Police but of no avail. Deceased Ramnath was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs. 2000/- per month.

¶13

The owners of offending HMT Zetor tractor in their written statement denied the knowledge of this accident. The HMT Zetor tractor was validly and effectively insured by the United Insurance Company and was being used for agricultural purposes. It was never used for carrying passengers. There was no trolley of this tractor. It was parked at village Anandpur on the date and time of the alleged accident. Hence, no accident occurred nor Ramnath died in this accident.

¶14

O.P. No. 6 did not appear or file any written statement, hence, exparte proceeding took place against her. O.P. No. 7 filed written statement on the ground of being time barred claim petition. It had insured the HMT Zetor tractor only for agricultural purpose and no liability may occur upon it for other purpose than agricultural purpose i.e. for carrying passengers. O.P. No. 8, Insurance Company of Mahendra Tractor, denied its liability.

¶15

¶16

Issues were framed and evidence were led by the parties and the impugned award was passed whereby contributory negligence of drivers of both the tractors involved in the accident was found, compensation of Rs. Two lacs was awarded against opposite parties 1 to 7 in the claim petition and liability of Rs. One Lakh each was fixed upon the owners of both the tractors with the condition of disbursement of the same among the claimants.

¶17

The appeal against this award was filed by the present appellant- Insurance Company, which was insurer of HMT Zetor tractor.

¶18

The only assail by learned counsel for the appellant was that the Tractor was insured only for agricultural purpose and not for carrying passengers, whereas the claim petition itself and testimonies of the claimants prove that the Tractor was being used for carrying Barat party. The Tribunal failed to appreciate this and passed the award by fixing liability against appellant- Insurance Company.

¶19

The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao, 2008(7) SCC 425, in which fact was same as of the present case, held that the respondents were travelling in a trolley attached to the Tractor as labourer and they suffered injuries in an accident of the tractor in which claim petitions were filed but the liability of Insurance Company was not fixed. The Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment has observed as under:-

¶20

8. So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Ors. (2007 (7) SCALE 753) and it was held that the Insurance Company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the

¶21

¶22

matters to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court in Smt. Yallwwa\022s case (supra) and Brij Mohan\022s case (supra).

¶23

In the present case Ramnath deceased was travelling as a member of Barat party in the trolley of the tractor concerned and the Tractor HMT Zetor met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of this tractor as well as another tractor Mahendra 255 for which claim petition for compensation was filed by the dependents of the deceased Ramnath. The insurance policy filed on record reveals that the tractor HMT Zetor was insured only for agricultural purpose and not for carrying passengers/ Barat party by attaching a trolley to the tractor, which is never a purpose of agriculture for which there may not be any responsibility of the appellant- Insurance Company.

¶24

Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award regarding liability of the appellant- Insurance Company to pay compensation is set aside. However, the appellantInsurance Company is said to have made payment against the award. The appellant- Insurance Company shall make payment of the entire amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents and will have the right to recover the same from the registered owner of the Tractor in the same proceeding before the Tribunal with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal and paid by the appellant to the claimants-respondents. The previous payment, if any, shall be adjusted.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Pcl

National Indurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ram Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Indurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Ram Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajjan Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Seeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Prasad @ Dhirendra @ Maulana Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Satya Prabha Devi and Another Vs Smt. Kaushilya Devi and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Chandrawati and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. New Delhi Vs Smt. Sahidan and Others