Manoj Kumar & Anr vs.shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd and Anr

Manoj Kumar & Anr vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd and Anr

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 06, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1206717

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1206717
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jul 06, 2017
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj Kumar & Anr

Advocate Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh

Respondent

Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd and Anr

Advocate Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya

Excerpt

.....the first respondent (insurer) of the offending vehicle, tractor bearing no.up13 8131 to pay, but also granted recovery rights to it as against the appellants, they being the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle, primarily on the ground that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy in that the tractor was registered and permitted to be used for agricultural and forestry purposes only.2. it appears prior to the accident, the tractor was taken with a trolley attached with for transporting badarpur (building material) to mac appeal no.218/2016 page 1 of 2 the place of occurrence which, in the opinion of the tribunal and the submission of the insurer, indicated commercial use. but the crucial fact in the assessment of this court is that at the time of the accident, the tractor was not being used for any such purposes. the cargo, if any, had already been offloaded. it was after the delivery of the cargo, whatever be its nature, when the tractor was moving that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of its driver. since the previous use would have no co-relation, the recovery rights cannot be upheld.3. the observation in the impugned judgment to the above effect are set aside. the amount, if deposited by the appellant in terms of the impugned judgment and interim order shall be refunded with statutory deposit.4. the insurance company is called upon to satisfy the award r.k.gauba, j.forthwith. july06 2017 nk mac appeal no.218/2016 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:

6. h July, 2017 + MAC.APP. 218/2016 MANOJ KUMAR & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh, versus Advocate SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR Through: Mr. Priyadarsi Acharya, Advocate for R-1. ........ RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. While granting compensation in favour of second respondent herein on his claim petition (MAC No.279/2010), the motor accident claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 6.11.2015, directed the first respondent (insurer) of the offending vehicle, tractor bearing No.UP13 8131 to pay, but also granted recovery rights to it as against the appellants, they being the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle, primarily on the ground that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy in that the tractor was registered and permitted to be used for agricultural and forestry purposes only.

2. It appears prior to the accident, the tractor was taken with a trolley attached with for transporting badarpur (building material) to MAC Appeal No.218/2016 Page 1 of 2 the place of occurrence which, in the opinion of the tribunal and the submission of the insurer, indicated commercial use. But the crucial fact in the assessment of this Court is that at the time of the accident, the tractor was not being used for any such purposes. The cargo, if any, had already been offloaded. It was after the delivery of the cargo, whatever be its nature, when the tractor was moving that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of its driver. Since the previous use would have no co-relation, the recovery rights cannot be upheld.

3. The observation in the impugned judgment to the above effect are set aside. The amount, if deposited by the appellant in terms of the impugned judgment and interim order shall be refunded with statutory deposit.

4. The insurance company is called upon to satisfy the award R.K.GAUBA, J.

forthwith. JULY06 2017 nk MAC Appeal No.218/2016 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2017 Same Parties Manoj Kumar & Anr vs Shri Ram General Insurance Co Ltd and Anr Same Subject Land Acquisition