Punjab-Haryana High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Surender Kumar And Ors on 23 January, 2014
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 5144 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 23.01.2014
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant
Versus
Surender Kumar and ors. ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. M.B. Jain, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN , J.
The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, assailing the award dated 14.03.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which, the claimant respondent No.1 has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,44,600/- on account of death of his wife in motor vehicular accident.
The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the relevant time of accident the tractor in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for the use of agricultural and forestry purposes as specifically mentioned in the policy. Learned counsel asserted that the tractor was being plied as commercial vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have also been filed.
Sharma Ritu 2014.02.12 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No. 5144 of 2011 (O&M) -2-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
This Court is of the considered view that it was not the duty of the insurance company to prove that the vehicle was being used for commercial purpose. Rather, it was the duty of owner and driver to prove that the vehicle was being used for agricultural purpose for which it was insured. Carrying of bricks can also be defined as agricultural use but for that the owner and driver have to make a statement to that effect and have to prove the agricultural use of bricks for agricultural purpose. Thus, it can be said with certainty that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the appellant is not held liable to indemnify the claimants and the rights have been granted to the appellant to recover the amount from the claimants.
With the above observations, the present appeal is allowed.
(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE January 23, 2014 rts Sharma Ritu 2014.02.12 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh