Allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harji and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2022CMA/52/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal, the Rajasthan High Court referred to Supreme Court dictums holding that statutory insurance only covers the tractor driver. Consequently, no compensation is granted for other passengers on the mud-guard. The court allowed the appeal regarding the admitted claim but ultimately held no liability existed for the incident described.

What did the court decide?

Compensation dismissed; admitted claim disposed of under Section 66 order.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Harji and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 52/2002

¶3

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Udaipur through its Divisional Manager, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Harji S/o Shri Kalu, By caste Meena, R/o Garda Dhariavad, District Udaipur.

¶7

Lalji S/o Shri Kachra Meena, R/o Heerawas Dhariavad, District Udaipur.

¶8

Smt. Amri W/o Shri (Laste) Phula Meena, R/o Heerawas, Dhariavad, District Udaipur.

¶9

Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Kapoora, By caste Meena, R/o Shikarwadi, Dhariavad, District Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 295/2002

¶13

Harji S/o Kalu Meena, Age 21 year, By caste Meena, R/o Garda Dhariyavadh, District Udaipur.

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Divisional office, Udaipur.

¶17

Lal Ji S/o Kachara Meena, R/o Haravas Dhariyavadh, Dist. Udaipur.

¶18

Smt. Amari W/o Late Shri Fula Meena, R/o Haravas, Dhariyavadh, Dist. Udaipur.

¶19

Tulsi Ram S/o Kapura Meena, R/o Shikarwari, Tehsil Dhariyavadh, Dist. Udaipur.

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yashwant Mehta For Respondent(s) :

¶22

(2 of 6)

¶23

[CMA-52/2002]

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶25

Judgment

¶26

Reserved on 02/08/2022 Pronounced on 04/08/2022

¶27

01;g nksuksa vihysa] ,d vihy chek dEiuh rFkk f}rh; vihy vihykFkhZ&DysesaV us fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] mn;iqj ds }kjk ,e-,-lh-Vh- izdj.k la[;k 66@1997 gjth cuke fn U;w bf.M;k ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM vkfn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-02-2001 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vihykFkhZ&DysesaV dk Dyse izkFkZuk&i= 01]32]500@&#i;s ds fy, vizkFkhZx.k ds fo#) la;qDr ,oa iFkd&iFkd :i ls fu.khZr fd;kA

¶28

02vihykFkhZ&DysesaV us izfrdj jkf'k dh of) ds fy, iFkd ls vihy izLrqr dh gS ysfdu vihykFkhZ&DysesaV dh vksj ls cgl ds le; dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvkA

¶29

03vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk Jh esgrk us ;g rdZ fn;k fd nq?kZVuk ds le; e`rd VªsDVj ds Åij eMxkMZ ij cSBk FkkA VªsDVj ij pkyd ds vykok vU; fdlh dks cSBkuk ugha gksrk FkkA VªsDVj ij fdlh vU; O;fDr dks cSBkus dk dksbZ izhfe;e Hkh chek dEiuh dks ugha fn;k gqvk Fkk] blfy, chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksus ds dkj.k chek dEiuh dk izfrdj jkf'k vnk;xh gsrq dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha curk gSA bl laca/k esa fook+|d la[;k 03 fojfpr gqvk gS ysfdu fo}ku vf/kdj.k us bl fook|d dk fofu'p; chek dEiuh ds fo#) djus esa fof/kd ,oa rF;kRed Hkwy dh gSA chek dEiuh ds nkf;Ro dh lhek rd vf/kdj.k dk fu.kZ; voS/k ,oa fof/k fo#) gS] ftls vikLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶30

04eSaus mi;qZDr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA izR;FkhZ&DysesaV us vius Dyse izkFkZuk&i= ds iSjk la[;k 01 esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd mlds firk dkyq VªsDVj ij Dyhuj dk dk;Z djrs FksA izn'kZ&02 izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ

¶31

(3 of 6)

¶32

[CMA-52/2002]

¶33

ifjoknh Fkkojk us ntZ djokbZ gS] ftlesa mlus ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd og rFkk xksik] nksuksa cl LVs.M ij [kM+s Fks( ,d VªsDVj dks ikoj&gkÅl] /kfj;kon fuoklh rqylh jke pykdj yk;k( mlus rqylh jke dks iwNk] fd/kj tk jgs gks \ rks mlus dgk fd ikoj&gkÅl dh rjQ tk jgk gwa] rc mlus dgk fd mUgsa Hkh cSBk ysa] ftl ij og vkSj xksik] nksuksa VªsDVj ds eMxkMZ ij cSB x,A VªsDVj pkyd us VªsDVj dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pyk;k] ftlls VªsDVj iqfy;k ij ls uhps [kÔ+s esa fxj iM+k( og VªsDVj iyVh [kkus ls igys dwn x;k( xksik o xjM+k fuoklh ,d yM+ds dks jkgxhj ckgj fudkydj vLirky ys x,A MªkbZoj rqylh jke ogka ls Hkkx x;kA

¶34

05izn'kZ&09 QnZ tIrh VªsDVj esa ;g vafdr gS fd VªsDVj e; fVyj ¼gyksa½ dks dCtk iqfyl esa fy;kA QnZ tIrh esa ;g vafdr ugha gS fd VªsDVj ds ihNs Vªksyh yxh gqbZ gksA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V izdV gksrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; ifjoknh Fkkojk o xksik VªsDVj ds eMxkMZ ij cSBs FksA rhljk O;fDr fVyj ij [kM+k Fkk ;k eMxkMZ ij cSBk Fkk] ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls Li"V ugha gksrk gSA ,-MCY;q-02 xksik us ftjg esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd VªsDVj ds lkFk Vªksyh Fkh] ftlesa og vkSj dkyw cSBs FksA ysfdu ,slh ckr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vafdr ugha gSA izn'kZ&09 QnZ tIrh esa Hkh VªsDVj ds lkFk Vªksyh yxh gqbZ gksuk vafdr ugha gSA fVyj ;kuh gyksa ij fdlh O;fDr dk cSBk gksuk vfHkys[k ls izdV ugha gksrk gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ifjoknh vkSj xksik eMxkMZ ij cSBs FksA erd nq? kZVuk ds le; VªsDVj dh eMxkMZ ;k fVyj ¼gyksa½ ;k Vªksyh] dgha ij Hkh cSBk gks] blls izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ vf/kd izHkko ugha iM+rk gS] D;ksafd VªsDVj fdlh ;kf= dh ;k=k ds fy, ugha gksrk gSA VªsDVj esa cSBd {kerk ,d gh gksrh gS] tks dsoy pkyd dh gksrh gSA erd VªsDVj dk pkyd ugha FkkA ,u-,-MCY;q-01 egsUnz dqekj ds vuqlkj izn'kZ&,u-,-1 ikWfylh ds }kjk 120@&#i;s r`rh; i{k ds tksf[ke gsrq] 87@&#i;s Vªksyh ds fy, rFkk

¶35

(4 of 6)

¶36

[CMA-52/2002]

¶37

15@&#i;s pkyd ds fy, izhfe;e izkIr fd;k x;kA VªsDVj ;k Vªksyh ;k fVyj ij fdlh ;k=h dks ;k=k djokus gsrq chek dEiuh }kjk dksbZ izhfe;e izkIr fd;k tkuk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA tc chek dEiuh us fdlh O;fDr dk VªsDVj esa ;k=h ds :i esa dksbZ izhfe;e gh izkIr ugha fd;k] rc chek dEiuh dk izfrdj jkf'k vnk;xh gsrq dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha curk gSA bl laca/k esa AIR 2021 KARNATAKA 102, Gadhilingappa alias Gadhilinga and Anr. Versus K. Guleppa K. Lingappa and Anr. ds iSjk la[;k 23 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS %&

¶38

"23. The Apex Court has reiterated that a tractor could lawfully accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. The Apex Court categorically held that the appellant in the said case had travelled in the tractor as a passenger even though the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver. It was categorically held that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor for the liability of a passenger travelling on the tractor. Hence, in view of the dictum of the Apex Court referred above, the liability of a person sitting on the mud-guard of a tractor is not required to be covered by statutory insurance policy, as contemplated by sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act."

¶39

06blh izdkj ls mDr uthj ds iSjk la[;k 33 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS %&

¶40

"33. Hence, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of V. Chinnamma, Shivaraj and Darshana Devi (supra) and the analysis made above, we have no manner of doubt that a liability of a person working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor and who is travelling on the mud-guard of the tractor is not required to be covered by the statutory insurance as contemplated under subsection (1) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act."

¶41

07izn'kZ&,u-,-1 ikWfylh ds rgr chek dEiuh us ;k=h ds :i esa fdlh O;fDr dk dksbZ izhfe;e izkIr ugha fd;k gSA VªsDVj esa cSBd {kerk ,d

¶42

(5 of 6) [CMA-52/2002]

¶43

gh gksrh gS] tks pkyd ds fy, gksrh gSA vr% mi;qZDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i gLrxr izdj.k esa chek dEiuh dk izfrdj jkf'k vnk;xh gsrq dksbZ nkf;Ro cuuk ugha ik;k tkrk gSA fo}ku vf/kdj.k us vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ds }kjk fook|d la[;k 03 dk tks fofu'p; fd;k] og mfpr ,oa fof/klEer izrhr gksrk gSA bl izdkj fook|d la[;k 03 dk fofu'p; chek dEiuh ds i{k esa fd;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gS fd gLrxr izdj.k esa chek dEiuh dk izfrdj jkf'k vnk;xh gsrq dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha curk gSA

¶44

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 295/2002

¶45

08;g vihy vihykFkhZ&DysesaV us fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk vf/kfu.khZr izfrdj jkf'k esa o`f) fd, tkus gsrq izLrqr dh gS] ysfdu bl vihy esa cgl ds le; vihykFkhZ&DysesaV dh vksj ls dksbZ ;ksX; vf/koDrk mifLFkr ugha gq, gSaA

¶46

09vk{ksfir fu.kZ; ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k us tks izfrdj jkf'k vf/kfu.khZr dh gS] og mfpr ,oa fof/klEer izrhr gksrh gSA vr% vihykFkhZ&DysesaV dh vihy Lohdkj fd, tkus ds ;ksX; ugha gSA

¶47

10ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku U;k;k/kh'k] eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k] mn;iqj us ,e-,-lh-Vh- izdj.k la[;k 66@1997 gjth cuke fn U;w bf.M;k ba';ksjsal dEiuh fyfeVsM vkfn esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-02-2001 ds }kjk izfrdj jkf'k vnk;xh gsrq] chek dEiuh dks tks mRRkjnk;h Bgjk;k gS] ml lhek rd vk{ksfir fu.kZ; vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh dks izfrdj vnk;xh ds nkf;Ro ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; dh ikyuk esa ;fn vihykFkhZ chek dEiuh us dksbZ jkf'k lanÙk dh gS rks og jkf'k chek dEiuh okgu ds Lokeh ,oa pkyd ls izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gksxhA

¶48

(6 of 6)

¶49

[CMA-52/2002]

¶50

11vihykFkhZ&DysesaV dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

¶51

12bl vkns'k dh izfr lfgr fo}ku vf/kdj.k dk vfHkys[k 'kh?kz

¶52

izsf"kr gksA

¶53

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶54

20-21-Rajendra/-

¶55

;g vkns'[email protected]; Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348 (i) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk jkti= la[;k 1] fnuakd 2 tuojh 1999 ,oa jktLFkku jkti= fnukafdr 10-3-1971 ds rgr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds iz;ksx dk s izkf/kd`r fd, tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fy[kk;k x;kA

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harji and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harji 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyag Chand Vs Gajanand and Ors.

Jagdev Singh Vs Manisha Devi

Jetha Ram Vs Madan Singh

Harji Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. Vs Chaina Ram and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Vs Mohan Singh and Ors.