Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sanjay Singh & Ors on 8 May, 2014

Author: Deepa Sharma

Bench: Deepa Sharma

$-31

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                        MAC APP. 561/2012


%                              Date of decision : 8th May, 2014.
       NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD         ..... Appellant
                    Through : Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv.

                         versus

       SANJAY SINGH & ORS                     ..... Respondent
                    Through :         None.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

DEEPA SHARMA, J (Oral)

1. In this case, a claim petition under Section 140 & 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed against the order dated 30 th March, 2012 of the Tribunal whereby, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,69,300/- and fixed the liability to make the payment upon the appellant.

2. The Tribunal has reached to the conclusion after the inquiry into the matter that, on 11th October, 2009, the claimant was driving a Car No. DL- 3CZ-5249 and was going to his residence at Pratap Nagar. When he reached at Hindon Nehar ki patri in front of Mulla Colony, Delhi, a tractor No. UP- 24J-8736 came in a very high speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner from Kondli Pull side and hit his car. As a result, the claimant suffered fractures of both bones of leg. The claimant was removed to the hospital. An FIR No. 430/2009 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 279/338 IPC.

3. The contention of the Insurance Company, before the Tribunal was that there had been a violation of the Insurance Policy as the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and also there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

4. On the basis of the evidences produced on record, the learned Tribunal fixed the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant and rejected its claim for recovery rights, holding that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the policy and that the driver was holding a valid driving license.

5. Aggrieved by the said findings, the presesnt appeal has been filed claiming the right to recovery of the compensation from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

6. The main contention of the appellant is that the Tractor was being driven on the road and was not being used for agricultural purposes and hence there is a breach of the policy conditions. It is also argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license for driving the tractor.

7. The tractor was being driven on the road and it has to be driven on the road and simply because the tractor was being driven on the road does not amount to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The appellant has failed to produce any evidenc on record to prove that the tractor was being used at that time for the purpose other than the agricultural purpose. Evidence shows that the tractor was coming out of the field and this shows that the tractor was used for agricultural purpose. No evidence has been produced on record to show that the tractor has been used for any commercial purpose by MACA 561/2012 Page 2 of 5 the owner of the said tractor at the time of accident.

8. The next contention of the appellant is that the driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving license.

9. The witness of the respondent R3W1 has exhibited Form 54 as Ex.RW1/3 issued by Licensing Authority, Badaun, U.P. which shows that the driving license was valid for Motor cycle and LMV (non-transport). The trial court has dealt with the issue whether the tractor falls within the category of LMV (non-transport). The relevant paragraphs of the impugned order are reproduced as under :-

".........14. Ld. Counsel for insurance company contended that the respondent no.1 was driving the tractor while he was having driving licence of LMV (NT) and a separate endorsement is required for driving the tractor hence there is a breach of policy conditions and insurance company is not liable.

15. I have gone through the material on record. The report on form 54 issued by Licensing Authority, Badaun, Ex.RW1/3 shows that driving licence of the respondent No. 1 was valid for motorcycle and LMV (non-transport). The tractor is defied in Sec. 2 (44) of MV Act and reads as under:-

(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry MACA 561/2012 Page 3 of 5 any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;

16 Light Motor Vehicle is defined in Sec. 2 Clause 21 of M.V. Act and reads as under :-

(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omni bus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed (7500) kilograms;

17. The certificate of registration shows unladen and laden weight of vehicle no. UP-24J-8736 to be 1880 kg which is less than 2500kg, therefore, the offending vehicle falls in the category of LMV. The insurance company failed to establish that separate endorsement is required on driving licence for driving the tractor. Therefore the necessary conclusion that follows is that the person having driving licence for driving LMV can drive tractor. Even otherwise in "National Insurance company Ltd. vs Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held that in each case the decision has to be taken whether the factum of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle, but, found driving another type of vehicle was the main or contributory cause of the accident." The Insurance company failed to establish any breach of condition of policy."

10. No illegality in the order of the learned trial court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue as per the provisions of the law and reached to the conclusion that the tractor is a motor vehicle and also comes within the definition of Section 2 (44) M.V. Act and is also a light motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2 (21) of Motor Vehicle Act. The tractor was not being used for any commercial purpose. It is also a non-transport vehicle. The appellant has failed to prove that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured.

11. The appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.

12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant be refunded.

DEEPA SHARMA, J MAY 08, 2014 j MACA 561/2012 Page 5 of 5