Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Ku.Hemvati on 6 August, 2024
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1 MA-1738-2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 1670 of 2006
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
BARTU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.K..Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Purn Jeet Gupta-1,2,3, And 4. appearing on behalf of Manoj Soni.
WITH
MISC. APPEAL No. 1737 of 2006
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
KUNWAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.K..Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Purn Jeet Gupta-1,2,3, And 4. appearing on behalf of Manoj
Soni.
MISC. APPEAL No. 1738 of 2006
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
KU.HEMVATI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.K..Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Purn Jeet Gupta-1,2,3, And 4. appearing on behalf of Manoj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH
Signing time: 14-08-2024
14:35:01
2 MA-1738-2006
Soni.
MISC. APPEAL No. 1740 of 2006
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
KOMAL SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri V.K..Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner .
Shri Purn Jeet Gupta-1,2,3, And 4. appearing on behalf of Manoj
Soni.
ORDER
This order shall govern the disposal of M.A.No..1670/2006 (United India Vs. Bartu and others), M.A. No.1738/2006 (United India Vs. Ku.Hemvati D/o Karam Singh and others), M.A. No.1740/2006 (United India Vs. Komal Singh and others) and M.A. No.1737/2006 (United India Vs. Kunwar Singh and others) arising out of award dated 21.01.2006 passed in MVC No.46/2005, MVC No.44/2005, MVC No.42/2005 and MVC No.45/2005 by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mandla.
2. All these appeals have been filed by appellants/Insurance Company for exoneration from liability to pay the compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/Insurance Company, after referring to Para 6 of the impugned award as well as FIR and relying upon National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. V. Chinnamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 697 and Phool Singh Vs. Pankhi and others reported in (2003) SCC Online MP 641 respectively, submits that at the time of accident, in offending vehicle (tractor trolley) a marriage party, consisting 40 to 45 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 14-08-2024 14:35:01 3 MA-1738-2006 persons, was being carried. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is also urged that in the instant case principle of pay and recover cannot be applied. Hence, Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to pay the compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/owner driver submits that offending vehicle was insured with appellants/insurance company for agriculture purposes. In view of Rules framed under Motor vehicles Act, marriage party can be carried therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
6. From perusal of record of the case, including averments in claim petitions, FIR filed in the case as well as depositions of applicant witnesses, it is clearly established that at the time of accident, in offending vehicle (tractor trolley) a marriage party, consisting of 45 persons, was being carried and for above, fare of Rs.950 was also paid. Though, applicant witnesses have deposed in their testimonies that at the time of accident, they got down from tractor trolley and they were pushing tractor trolley and at that time, tractor trolley got over turned. With respect to above, it is important to note that in claim petitions, facts as deposed by applicant witnesses, have not been mentioned. Contrary to depositions by applicant witnesses, in claim petitions, it is mentioned that at the time of accident, marriage party was being carried in tractor trolley and driver of tractor trolley drove the same rashly and negligently and overturned the trolley. Further in FIR, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 14-08-2024 14:35:01 4 MA-1738-2006 mentioned that at the time of accident, 45 persons were being carried as member of marriage party after payment of Rs.950/- as fare and driver of tractor trolley drove rashly and negligently and on account of the same, trolley got overturned. In the instant case, FIR has been filed by claimants themselves, therefore, they cannot say that any part or contents of FIR are incorrect.
7. Thus, from evidence on record, it is clearly established that at the time of accident, 45 persons were being carried in trolley after payment of Rs.950/- as fare and tractor trolley was insured for agriculture purposes. In view of above factual position, in this Courts opinion, in view of law laid down by full Bench in Bhav Singh vs Smt. Savirani And Ors. 2008 ACJ 1043, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and in the instant case, principle of pay and recover also cannot be applied.
8. Hence, appeals filed by the appellant/Insurance company is allowed and impugned award is modified accordingly. Remaining finding of the tribunal shall remain intact.
9. Accordingly, all appeals are disposed off.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE R Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 14-08-2024 14:35:01