Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Company vs Rekha Balmiki on 8 April, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11626
1 MA-4792-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 8 th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4792 of 2019
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
REKHA BALMIKI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Akhilesh Dubey - Advocate for Claimants No.1, 3 and 4.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the impugned award dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vidisha (hereinafter referred to as "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.91/2016, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.13,19,600/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants, fastening liability upon the Insurance Company.
2 . The date of the accident and the finding regarding negligence are not in dispute, nor are the findings of the Claims Tribunal in that regard under challenge. The only dispute involved in the present appeal relates to the liability to pay compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 09-Apr-26 10:25:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11626 2 MA-4792-2019 the impugned award is contrary to the facts on record and the settled principles of law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening primary liability upon the Insurance Company despite the fact that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger on the tractor. A tractor is meant only for the driver, and travelling on the mudguard is prohibited under law, as proved by NAW/1 and NAW/2. It is further submitted that the Insurance Company did not collect any premium for a person travelling on the mudguard of the tractor and, therefore, the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the Insurance Company be totally exonerated from liability to pay compensation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the misc. appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
6. On perusal of the record, it is found that Rekha Balmiki (AW-1), the wife of the deceased, admitted in her evidence that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard at the time of the accident. In paragraph 12 of her deposition, she admitted that on 03.07.2016, her husband, Dharmendra Balmiki, was travelling on the tractor belonging to non-applicant No.1; that at the place of the incident at Batinagar, Gajraj Singh was driving the tractor and her husband was riding on it; and that her husband died due to electrocution. Further, Tabbu Lal (AW-2) also admitted in his evidence that at the time of the accident, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 09-Apr-26 10:25:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11626 3 MA-4792-2019 tractor.
7. Thus, it stands duly proved that at the time of the alleged accident, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the deceased receiving an electric shock and dying. Findings were not challenged by the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle. It is, therefore, clear that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. On perusal of Ex.D-9, it is evident that the Insurance Company had not received any premium for a gratuitous passenger. The premium was taken only for third-party risk and compulsory personal accident cover for the owner-driver. No premium was paid for any passenger travelling on the mudguard.
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of in MA No. 755/2006 (Ramesh and others Vs Punnam Dhakad & others) dated 24/09/2025 held as under :-
11. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Bakaridan & Others, 2017 ACJ 2524, wherein it is held that if death of a passenger travelling on the mudguard of Tractor when Tractor met with accident due to its rash and negligent driving, then Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability as seating capacity of Tractor is only one person i.e. driver and no premium is paid for carrying passengers by the side of driver or in trolley and thus, only the owner will be responsible for the payment of compensation and not the Insurance Company.
12. In the present case, it is clear that as deceased was travelling in a tractor as a passenger or labour, therefore, the deceased could not be treated as third party and there is no premium taken by the Insurance Company for labour or passenger seated on the tractor.
13. In the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani, AIR 2003 SC 607 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that since passenger is not allowed on tractor, Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability and the claimants will be entitled to recover compensation only from the owner and driver of the tractor who shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
14. In the case at hand, deceased was travelling in the tractor and Insurance Company has not taken any premium of any Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 09-Apr-26 10:25:38 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11626 4 MA-4792-2019 passenger or labour sitting/travelling in tractor. So, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Appellants/claimants are entitled to get compensation only from driver and owner of the offending vehicle who are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
15. This Court is of the considered view that Tribunal has committed an error imposing liability upon the Insurance company alongwith owner and driver jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the claimants. Therefore, the findings in this regard of Tribunal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
9. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is totally exonerated from its liability to pay compensation. The findings of the Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company are hereby set aside, while the remaining findings of the award shall remain intact. The claimants shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, who shall be jointly and severally liable.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 09-Apr-26 10:25:38 AM