1 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR MISC. APPEAL NO.2804/11. Karan Lal Versus. Charan Lal For the appellant : Shri Sanjay Sarvate, Advocate. For the respondent : None ORDER
(Oral) (Passed on 03.04.2013) Per U. C. Maheshwari J.
1. The appellant/ registered owner of the offending tractor and trolley has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act being aggrieved by the award dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in Motor Claim Case No.86/2009 whereby allowing the claim of respondent No.1 to 3 with respect of the vehicular death of Bhuvan Lal, aged about twenty years the son of respondent No.1 and 2 while brother of respondent No.3 by exonerating the Insurance Company respondent No.5 has been awarded against the appellant for the sum of Rs.2,10,000/- along with the interest @ 6 % p. a. from the date of filing the claim petition.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that Bhuvan Lal son of respondent No.1 and 2 while brother of respondent No.3 was working as labour with respondent No.4 Shivshankar @ Kolhu Banote and under his instruction on 19.5.2009 in the morning he went on the tractor of the appellant bearing registration not M.P.50-A-1758 to bring the sand and stones for the purpose of construction of the house and Court Yard of respondent No.4. Such tractor was driven by the deceased Driver Raman @ Ram Prasad. After loading the sand and stones in the trolley he was returning to the house by sitting on the trolley on the way some road being under construction was zig zag, resultantly the tractor trolley turned turtled. Consequently, aforesaid driver Raman and said Bhuvan Lal died on the spot. Incident was reported to the Police Station Navegaon, the dead bodies were sent to 2 the hospital for postmortem, the same was carried out. Some merg intimation was also registered. As per further averments the deceased Bhuvanlal beside the work of labour with respondent No.4 was also doing some agricultural work and out of them was earning Rs.5,000/- p. m. It is further stated that due to his untimely death the respondent No.1 to 3 have been deprived from dependency and they have no other source of income. In such premises, the impugned claim was preferred for the sum of Rs.16,54,000/- against the appellant as well as the Insurance Company with a prayer to pass the award jointly and severely against them.
3. In joint reply of appellant and respondent No.4 under whose subordination the deceased was working as labour by admitting the registered ownership of tractor and trolley in the name of appellant, it is stated that tractor was duly insured with respondent No.5. However, the factum of accident was denied. In alternative it is stated that on holding any liability of the accident against them then same be saddled against the respondent No.5, as the tractor was duly insured with it. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the claim was made.
4. In reply of respondent No.5/ Insurance Company by denying the averments of the claim petition the fact of alleged accident as well as the insurance of offending tractor with it were denied. In alternative, it was stated that tractor being driven by the deceased Raman @ Ram Prasad without having duly and effective driving licence contrary to the terms and condition of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any claim to the respondent No.1 to 3. It is also stated that the tractor was registered in the name of appellant and insured with it for agricultural purpose and not for commercial purpose but on the aforesaid date the tractor was plied by the appellant for commercial purpose to bring the sand and stones for construction of house of respondent No.4. So, in such premises also the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation of the impugned claim and the prayer for exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of compensation is made”
5. In reply of respondent No.6, the wife of the deceased Raman by admitting the registered ownership of the tractor in the name of appellant it is stated that tractor was duly insured with respondent No.5. She also admitted the averments regarding factum of the alleged accident. In further averments it is stated that her husband was working on such tractor as driver of the appellant and at the time of accident having duly and effective licence, the same was driven by him and at that time deceased Bhuvan Lal was sitting on the trolley. By disputing the quantum of compensation as prayed by the respondent No.1 to 3 the prayer to exonerate her from the liability of the claim is made.
6. In view of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties after framing the issues evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the same by holding that tractor insured for agricultural purpose being plied by the appellant contrary to such terms and condition of the policy for commercial purpose to bring the sand to make the construction of house of respondent No.4, the liability of the impugned claim could not be saddled against the Insurance company and in such premises by exonerating the Insurance Company from such liability, the claim by holding that the deceased Bhuvan Lal died due to rash and negligence driving of the above mentioned tractor under the instruction of the appellant by deceased Raman @ Ram Prasad without having the duly and effective driving licence was awarded against the appellant for the sum mentioned above. Being dissatisfied with such award the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal with a prayer to set aside the impugned award and dismiss the claim petition of the respondent No.1 to 3 with an alternative prayer to saddle liability of awarded compensation jointly and severally against the appellant as well as the respondent No.5 Insurance Company as the vehicle was duly insured with it for agricultural purpose for which the same was plied.
7. The appellant's counsel after taking me through the record of the Tribunal along with the evidence led by the parties, so also the impugned award said that aforesaid tractor was duly insured with the respondent No.5/ Insurance Company for agricultural purpose covering 4 the entire risk of the same. In continuation he said that on the date of the incident the tractor was plied to bring the sand for making construction of the house which was under construction for agricultural purpose and in such premises there was no occasion with the Tribunal to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability of impugned claim but under the wrong premises by exonerating it the appellant has been held liable to pay the sum of the award and prayed for saddling the liability of the claim against the respondent No.5 by admitting and allowing this appeal.
8. Having heard the counsel keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, I have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned award.
9. It is apparent fact from the impugned award that the same has been passed taking into consideration that the tractor being registered in the name of the appellant was duly insured with respondent No.5 for agricultural purpose and on the date of the incident the same was plied by him through driver deceased Raman @ Ram Prasad for brining the sand of respondent No.4 and deceased Bhuvan Lal being labour of respondent No.4 was travelling on the trolley of such tractor. As per findings of the Tribunal based on appreciation of the evidence the tractor was neither insured to cover the risk of any labour not for commercial use. After perusing the evidence, I have not found any error in such appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal in holding the tractor was plied by the appellant contrary to the purpose for which the same was insured with the respondent No.5. As such at the time of the alleged accident the tractor and trolley was not plied for any agricultural purpose of the appellant but the same was plied contrary to the terms of the policy to bring the sand of respondent No.4.
10. It is settled proposition of law that where there is violation of terms and condition of the Insurance policy, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay any compensation to any of the claimants. It is also trite law whenever that where the tractor and trolley are insured for agricultural purpose and the same were used for 5 non-agricultural purposes or for commercial purpose then in that circumstance no liability of claim could be saddled against the Insurance Company. In such case the liability of the claim could be saddled against the registered owner and driver of the tractor undisputedly driver has died in the alleged accident. So, in such premises the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the award only against the registered owner the appellant by exonerating the Insurance Company. In this connection the Tribunal has also cited the decided case laws in the matter of United India Insurance Company Vs. Chhaniya 2010 ACJ 1020.RajaBai Vs. New India Insurance Company 2008 ACJ 201.(M.P.), National Insurance Company Vs. Sukhiya Bai 2010 ACJ 200.(M.P.) and in the matter of United India Insurance Vs. Angoori Devi 2010 ACJ 267.and the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Vs. Sushila 2010 ACJ 2671.The principles laid down in the aforesaid cited cases are also directly applicable to the case at hand, hence I have not found any substance in the matter for saddling the liability of the impugned claim against the respondent No.5 the Insurance Company.
11. Apart the aforesaid in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298.I have not fund any material circumstance in the matter for reducing the sum awarded by the Tribunal, as such awarded sum is in consonance with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case of Sarla Verma (Supra). So there is no scope in the matter even for reduction of the awarded sum.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any substance in this appeal even for admission, consequently the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. (U. C. Maheshwari) Judge K.