Allowed

The Branch Manager and Anr. v. Jagdish Mahto and Ors.

Patna HC22 Aug 2017MA/534/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal against an interim compensation order. It held that since the vehicle was insured for agriculture but used to carry passengers, policy terms were violated, excusing the insurer. The case was remitted for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; case remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration; statutory deposit of Rs.25,000 returned to appellants.

The Branch Manager and Anr. Vs Jagdish Mahto and Ors. — Insurance | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.534 of 2009

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Sitamarhi Branch, At/P.O.- Sitamarhi

¶5

Chairman, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited At/P.O- Muzaffarpur,

¶6

Distt- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jagdish Mahto @Singh Late Dasai Mahto Vill- Ram Naika, P.O./P.S-Parihar, Sub-Division- Sitamarhi Sadar Distt- Sitamarhi

¶9

Ram Pratap Mahto Late Jagdish Mahto Vill- Ram Naika, P.O./P.S-Parihar, Sub-Division- Sitamarhi Sadar Distt- Sitamarhi

¶10

Ram Briksh Mahto Late Jagdish Mahto Vill- Ram Naika, P.O./P.S-Parihar, Sub-Division- Sitamarhi Sadar Distt- Sitamarhi

¶11

Smt. Sripati Devi Late Jagdish Mahto @ Singh W/O Sahdeo Mahto VillMasha, P.O./P.S- Parihar, Sub-Division- Sitamarhi Sadar Distt- Sitamarhi

¶12

Taanne @ Faij S/O- Late Sheikh Kasim Vill- Ram Naika, P.O/P.S- Parihar, Sub-Division -Sitamarhi Sadar, Distt- Sitamarhi.

¶13

.... .... Respondents

¶14

=========================================================== Appearance:

¶15

For the Appellants : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.

¶16

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date: 22-08-2017

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent no.5. No one turned up on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, while the appeal stood abated against respondent no.4.

¶19

2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitamarhi in Claim Case No.10 of 2007, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the appellants-Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs.50,000.00 as ad interim compensation to the

¶20

Patna High Court MA No.534 of 2009 dt.22-08-2017

¶21

2 / 5

¶22

applicants/respondent nos.1 to 4.

¶23

3. The factual matrix of the case is that deceased Ram Raji Devi had gone to Sonbarsa along with villagers by a tractor bearing registration no.BR-30 B-1107 on 27.02.2007 & while they were regressing to their house on the following day, the driver of the said tractor was demanding more fair than already paid but the passengers refused to pay the excess fair so the driver stopped the tractor for a while and again started driving it rashly and negligently, due to which the said tractor turned turtle resulting into the death of the Ram Raji Devi and inflicting injuries to other persons. For the death of the said Ram Raji Devi, her legal representatives filed Claim Case No.10 of 2007 against the appellants, owner and driver of the offending vehicle and also filed a petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶24

4. After hearing the parties on the petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and perusing the record, the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal vide his order dated 30.06.2009 directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs.50, 000.00 as ad interim compensation to the claimants.

¶25

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance

¶26

Patna High Court MA No.534 of 2009 dt.22-08-2017

¶27

3 / 5

¶28

Company has filed this appeal.

¶29

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly the deceased was travelling in the tractor bearing registration no.BR-30 B-1107 on hire and died in the accident met by the said tractor. As the said tractor was ensured only for the agriculture purpose and not for ferrying passengers there was utter violation of terms and conditions of the policy, hence the appellants, who happen to be the Insurance Company, are not liable to pay compensation to the claimants indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellants has also placed reliance on the case law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao & Ors. reported in (2007) 0 Supreme (SC) 1455 . In the said case law Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to rule that some labourers while travelling in trollies died in the accident met by the trollies, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

¶30

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submitted that though the said tractor was insured by the Insurance Company for agriculture purpose by its owner and driver was given the tractor for using it for the said purpose by its owner but without knowledge of the owner of the tractor, the

¶31

Patna High Court MA No.534 of 2009 dt.22-08-2017

¶32

4 / 5

¶33

driver was ferrying the deceased as passenger on the said tractor which met an unfortunate accident resulting into her death, hence for want of knowledge about the said misdeed of driver, respondent no.5 owner is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.

¶34

8. On perusal of record, it appears that it is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased was travelling on the tractor at the relevant time and met an accident as the said tractor turned turtle by rash and negligent driving of it by its driver. It is also admitted case that the said tractor was insured for the agriculture purpose only. As the said tractor was insured for the agriculture purpose only and the driver was ferrying the deceased on the said tractor on hire, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, in my considered opinion, the Insurance Company i.e. the appellants are not liable to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation indemnifying the owner of the vehicle when there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

¶35

9. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent no.5, that as the owner had no knowledge of ferrying the passengers by the said tractor by its driver, he is not liable to

¶36

Patna High Court MA No.534 of 2009 dt.22-08-2017

¶37

5 / 5

¶38

pay the compensation to the claimants, does not appear to be convincing & appreciable as the driver of the tractor happens to be the employee of the owner of the vehicle hence the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for any act or omission committed by his driver during course of discharge of his duty as a driver and the owner cannot claim exoneration on the ground of lack of knowledge of misdeed of the driver.

¶39

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside & the case is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of observation made by me hereinabove. Let the statutory amount of Rs.25,000.00 deposited by the appellants be returned to it forthwith by way of cheque or demand draft.

¶40

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.)

¶41

Trivedi/-

¶42

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
UploadingDate	30.08.2017
Transmission Date	NA

The Branch Manager and Anr. v. Jagdish Mahto and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager and Anr. v. Jagdish Mahto and Ors.

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

Sintu Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sonu Kumar @ Pratik Kumar Singh @ Sonu Kumar Singh @ Pratik Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Sanjay Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Jharo Kuwar Vs The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur bihar

Pintu Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Noor Jahan and Ors.