Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sheela vs Haricharn on 7 August, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1 MA-5937-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 5937 of 2018
SMT. SHEELA AND OTHERS
Versus
HARICHARN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri J.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Kamal Rochlani, learened counsel for respondent No. 3.
ORDER
Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the impugned award dated 28/9/2018 passed by Member, 6th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 193/2017.
2. By the impugned award, the claim case filed by claimants has been rejected.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 25/11/2016 at 4.00 pm when deceased Lokendra, son of appellant was standing by the side of road, it is alleged that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, tractor No. MP06AB3265 turned turtle over deceased due to which he sustained grievous hurts. He was taken to hospital, where he was declared brought dead. Therefore, claimants filed a claim case under Section 166 of MV Act seeking total compensation of Rs. 90,50,000/-; however, by the impugned award though Claims Tribunal found that claimants are entitled to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 09-08-2024 02:31:44 PM 2 MA-5937-2018 receive a compensation of Rs. 7,03,000/- but since claimants failed to prove that deceased died due to injuries sustained by him because of rash and negligent driving of tractor driver of tractor No. MP06AB3265, claim case has been rejected.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the contents of FIR wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that deceased was standing by the side of road when accident happened and further erred in believing the police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. according to which at the time of accident, deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 opposed the prayer and while supporting the impugned award, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From the record,it is clear that learned Claims Tribunal rejected the claim case on the ground that claimants failed to prove that deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in a road accident due to rash and negligent driving of tractor driver of tractor No. MP06AB3265; however from the challan as well as statement of Jandel Singh as well as cousin brother of deceased namely Ramveer it is clear that at the time of accident deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no doubt that at the time of accident, deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and therefore, learned Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim case filed by the appellants.
8. As the Tractor is not meant for sitting of any passenger. This aspect Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 09-08-2024 02:31:44 PM 3 MA-5937-2018 has been decided by this Court in 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 and thus only the owner will be responsible for the payment of compensation. This aspect has also been discussed by a coordinate Bench of this Court at Indore in Ramakant Mishra versus Pramod Kumar & Others (Miscellenous Appeal No.733 of 2000 decided on 23.6.2022).
9. As there is violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy inasmuch as the sitting capacity of the Tractor is only One and no passenger is allowed so also no premium for passenger is charged, therefore, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation will be payable by the Owner & Driver of the Tractor only and even the direction of Pay and Recover cannot be issued to the Insurance Company and instead respondents owner and driver of the tractor are fastened with the liability of payment of compensation amount.
10. As regards quantum of compensation, in the opinion of this Court, the amount of compensation as calculated by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 7,03,000/- is just and proper and needs no intereference.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed in part and appellants are held entitled to receive a compensation of Rs. 7,03,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim case and amount of Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 09-08-2024 02:31:44 PM 4 MA-5937-2018 compensation shall be payable by respondents No. 1 and 2 within two months from today.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Signing time: 09-08-2024 02:31:44 PM