Madhya Pradesh High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Sahanaj on 23 February, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7086
1 MA-4746-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 4746 of 2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
Versus
SAHANAJ AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal - Advocate for the appellant/Insurance
Company.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8
and 9.
Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Shri Vibhor Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to
6.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Fourth Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Guna (M.P.) in Claim Case No. 107/2023, seeking exoneration from its liability.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents no. 1 to 7 preferred a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the death of the deceased, Rahis Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). During the pendency Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 2/25/2026 6:17:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7086 2 MA-4746-2024 of the claim petition, respondent no. 7 (mother-in-law of the deceased) passed away and was deleted as a party. The deceased died in a road traffic accident on 06-05-2023, allegedly involving a tractor bearing registration No. MP 08 AC 3149, which was attached to an uninsured trolley. On the fateful day, the tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company. The claimants submitted that at the time of the accident, the deceased was 28 years old, traveling on a motorcycle driven by Anil, and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as a motor mechanic at a TVS Showroom.
3. Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 filed their written statements, and the appellant insurance company also opposed the claim application on the grounds that no accident occurred involving the vehicle as stated in the claim petition. The earnings and dependency of the claimants were also denied, and other defenses were raised, praying for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and, after appreciating the facts and the material on record, allowed the claim application, holding the claimants/respondents no. 1 to 6 entitled to a compensation of Rs. 18,59,500/- along with interest.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal, submitting that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the settled provisions of law and is inconsistent with the facts, circumstances, and material on record. It is further submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the legal aspect that the deceased was struck by the trolley, which was uninsured. As such, the Insurance Company should not be held liable for the accident caused by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 2/25/2026 6:17:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7086 3 MA-4746-2024 uninsured trolley, and the impugned award deserves to be set aside, exonerating the appellant Insurance Company.
6. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the legal requirement that the trolley must be separately registered and insured. Since the trolley was not insured under the policy, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company for an accident involving the uninsured trolley. Moreover, it is argued that when both the tractor and trolley are involved in an accident, both the tractor and the trailer must be insured in order to hold the Insurance Company liable. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned award be set aside and the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability.
7. In support of their submission, counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhondubai vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude thr. LRs. , 2023 ACJ 1979, and IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD vs. Kumar Singh & Ors. , SLP No. CC 12585/2012.
8. Per contra, counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Claims Tribunal.
10. The first issue to be decided is whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated from liability on the grounds that the trolley attached to the tractor was uninsured.
11. It is undisputed that the tractor bearing Registration No. MP 08 AC Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 2/25/2026 6:17:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7086 4 MA-4746-2024 3149 was attached to an uninsured trolley. The deceased got struck by the trolley while it was being reversed, resulting in his death. The tractor was insured, but the trolley was not.
12. As per Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a trolley is considered a vehicle and must be registered under Section 61 of the MV Act. Furthermore, Section 146 of the MV Act mandates that every vehicle, including a trolley, must be insured. In the present case, the tractor was insured, but the trolley was not. However, it is crucial to note that the accident occurred due to the tractor pulling the trolley, and it was the tractor's operation that led to the accident.
Section 2 (28) of Motor Vehicles Act is reads as under:-
(28) "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding1 [twenty-five cubic centimetres];
Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reads as under:-
61. Application of Chapter to trailers.--(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the registration of trailers as they apply to the registration of any other motor vehicle.
(2) The registration mark assigned to a trailer shall be displayed in such manner on the side of the drawing vehicle, as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) No person shall drive a motor vehicle to which a trailer is or trailers are attached unless the registration mark of the motor vehicle so driven is displayed on the trailer or on the last trailer in the train, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act is read as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 2/25/2026 6:17:15 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7086 5 MA-4746-2024
146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.--(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter:
[Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).] Explanation.--A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.
(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise.
(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of sub-section (1) any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely:--
(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise;
(b) any local authority;
(c) any State transport undertaking:
Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment may incur to third parties.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, "appropriate Government" means the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, and--
(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government or any State Government, means the Central Government or that State Government;
(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government and one or more State Governments, means the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any local authority, means that Government which has control over that undertaking or authority."
13. The vehicle involved in the accident was the tractor, which was insured. The trolley, although uninsured, was attached to the tractor, and it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 2/25/2026 6:17:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:7086 6 MA-4746-2024 not the case that the accident was solely caused by the trolley. The tractor's actions, including the reckless driving and reversing, were the proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the liability of the tractor and its insurer extends to the accident caused by the tractor, even though the trolley was uninsured.
14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal rightly held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. The tractor, which was insured, played a direct role in the accident, and the insurer of the tractor is liable for the compensation despite the trolley being uninsured. No illegality or perversity has been committed by the Claims Tribunal in holding the Insurance Company liable.
15. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of merit. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is affirmed.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE *VJ* Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 2/25/2026 6:17:15 PM