Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Panbai on 12 December, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32836
1 MA-762-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 762 of 2006
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
PANBAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.N.Malhotra - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Shri Arman Ali- Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the impugned award dated 28.04.2006 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Mungaoli, District Guna (M.P.), acting as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in Claim Case No.07/2004. By the said award, the Claims Tribunal held that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle had breached the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy; however, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the awarded amount with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.02.2004, deceased Kalyan Singh was sitting on Tractor No. MP-08-J-4798 and was going towards Mungaoli. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by Govind. During the course of travel, Kalyan Singh fell down from the tractor, came under its wheels, and sustained severe head injuries. As a result of the injuries, he died on the spot. The incident was reported to Police Station Chanderi, on the basis of which a criminal Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Dec-25 01:04:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32836 2 MA-762-2006 case was registered. After due investigation and completion of other formalities, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court.
3. The claimants thereafter filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of Kalyan Singh. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 remained ex parte and did not file written statements. The appellant- Insurance Company filed its written statement contending that the deceased was travelling as a passenger on the tractor and no premium had been paid for such passenger risk. It was specifically pleaded that the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the owner for the death of a person sitting on the tractor, particularly on the mudguard.
4. The Claims Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after recording evidence of both parties, awarded compensation in favour of the claimants.
Although the Tribunal held that the owner and driver had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, it nevertheless directed the Insurance Company to first satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation with liberty of recovery. It was contended that the offending tractor was insured strictly for agricultural purposes. At the time of the accident, the tractor was being used for commercial purposes, namely, for carrying bricks for construction of a temple, thereby converting it into a transport vehicle. The deceased was admittedly sitting on the mudguard of the tractor at the time of the accident and no premium was paid for carrying any passenger on the tractor, much less a person sitting on the mudguard. As per settled law, the Insurance Company has no liability in respect of an unauthorized passenger travelling on a tractor. On these grounds, it Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Dec-25 01:04:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32836 3 MA-762-2006 was prayed that the impugned award be set aside to the extent it fastens liability upon the Insurance Company.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle supported the impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record of the Claims Tribunal, it is evident from Paragraph 15 of the impugned award that the Tribunal has categorically held that the offending tractor was insured for agricultural purposes. At the time of the accident, it was being used for commercial purposes, i.e., for carrying bricks for a temple and the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor at the time of the accident. These findings were not challenged by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and, therefore, attained finality. Thus, it stands conclusively proved that the owner and driver committed breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
8. 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.
9. 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Dec-25 01:04:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32836 4 MA-762-2006 entitled to recover compensation only from the owner and driver of the tractor who shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
10. In view of the settled legal position and the admitted facts on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award with liberty of recovery.
11. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 28.04.2006 is modified to the extent that the appellant-Insurance Company is completely exonerated from liability to pay compensation. It is held that the claimants shall be entitled to recover the awarded compensation only from the owner and driver of the offending tractor, who shall be jointly and and severally liable to pay the same.
No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *AVI* Signature Not Verified Signed by: AVINASH BHARGAV Signing time: 17-Dec-25 01:04:49 PM