Jharkhand High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Shanti Devi on 19 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Himalaya House, 38-B Chowringhee
Road, P.S. Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700071 through Tapas Kumar
Saha, Sr. Divisional Manager, Divisional office at Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi
... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Shanti Devi, wife of Late Sunil Kumar Sao
2. Samar Kumar Gupta, son of Late Sunil Kumar Sao
3. Jogendra Saw, son of Prem Saw
4. Lalita Devi, wife of Jogendra Saw
All resident of Village Hurhuru, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Sadar, District-
Hazaribag
5. G.R. Infra Projects Ltd., G.R. House, Hiran Magri Sector-11, P.O., P.S. &
District- Udaypur (Udaipur), Rajasthan- 313002
6. G.R. Infra Projects Ltd., through I/C Pankaj Agarwal, Morangi, office at
10 Kms before Hazaribag, P.S. Mufasil, Hazaribag, Ranchi Road, P.O. &
District- Hazaribag
7. Sampat Kumar Singh, son of Deokant Singh @ Deoki Singh, resident of
Village- Dina Chakla, P.O. Dina Chakla, P.S. Pasraha, District- Khagadiya
(Bihar) ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.5 and 6 : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate
-----
11/19.02.2025 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the insurance company-
appellant, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the claimants- respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle-respondent nos. 5 and 6.
2. This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the judgment/award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Claim Case (Motor Accident Claim Case) No.81 of 2013, whereby, the said claim case filed by the claimants has been allowed and award of Rs.5,29,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company.
-1- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018
3. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the insurance company-appellant submits that the said claim case was instituted for compensation alleging that on 26.11.2012 at about 08:00 P.M., the deceased Sunil Kumar Sao was coming from Charhi to his house Hurhuru by motorcycle. When he reached near Mukundganj NH-33, a Roller bearing No. JH-01AE-4986 being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, he received serious injuries and he died during treatment at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag. He submits that an FIR being Sadar (Mufasil) P.S. Case No.939/2012 was registered under Section 279/338/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code on 27.11.2012 against the driver of the offending vehicle. He then submits that the said claim case was instituted stating therein that the deceased Sunil Kumar Sao was a Mechanic of Scooter and Motorcycle and he earned Rs.15,000/- per month and it was also stated therein that the deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. He submits that in this background, the said claim case was instituted and the learned Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.5,29,000/- in favour of the claimants, which is against the mandate of law. The point raised by Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant is that the said vehicle being Road Roller is not the vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act, 1988") and under the Contractors Plant Machinery (CPM), the insurance is not covering third party insurance. He draws attention of the Court to the insurance policy and submits that there is exclusion clause under the exclusion extension and the vehicle was plying on the general road and in view of that, as per the exclusion clause third party insurance is not covered. He also submits that the insurance policy is not a motor policy. He relied upon
-2- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018 the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Manager Legal, M/s. Future Generali Insurance Company Limited v. Manjulata Rout and others in M.A.C.A. No.815 of 2020 and submits that the case of the appellant is fully covered in light of the said judgment. On these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be set aside.
4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle-respondent nos. 5 and 6 submits that the insurance policy was in the nature of Contractors Plant Machinery Insurance Policy and it was valid from 23.03.2012 to 22.03.2013 and the accident took place on 26.11.2012 and, as such, there is no dispute that during the validity of the insurance policy, the accident took place. He draws attention of the Court to the schedule and specifications of insured items including extensions and submits that under the head of third party liability (TPL), the amount has been paid. He further draws attention of the Court to Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988 and submits that light motor vehicle is described therein which includes Road Roller. By way of referring Section 10(2)(d) and (i) of the Act, 1988, he submits that the Road Roller is also described therein. By way of referring Rule 2(cab) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Rules, 1989"), he submits that the construction equipment vehicle is also defined therein. He further submits that the license in terms of Rules 10, 14, 17 and 18 of the Rules, 1989, Form-2 is prescribed and in the column of LMV and others, Road Roller is also included. He submits that in view of that, the learned Tribunal has rightly dealt with the issue and passed the award and there is no illegality in the award. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bose Abraham v. State
-3- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018 of Kerala and another, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 157. He refers paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"7. We hold that the excavators and roadrollers are motor vehicles for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act and they are registered under that Act. The High Court has noticed the admission of the appellants that the excavators and roadrollers are suitable for use on roads. However, the contention put forth now is that they are intended for use in the enclosed premises. Merely because a motor vehicle is put to a specific use such as being confined to enclosed premises, will not render the same to be a different kind of vehicle. Hence, in our view, the High Court has correctly decided the matter and the impugned order does not call for any interference by us. However, the question whether any motor vehicle has entered into a local area to attract tax under the Entry Tax Act or any concession given under the local Sales Tax Act will have to be dealt with in the course of assessment arising under the Entry Tax Act."
5. On the same line, Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6 further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of A.P. and another v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association and others, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 210. He refers paragraph 4 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"4. Undoubtedly, the power to impose taxes on vehicles is derived from Entry 57 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. This permits levy of taxes on vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads. The Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 does not define what is a vehicle. It, however, provides that the definition will be as given in the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines a "motor vehicle"
under Section 2(28) as follows:
"2. (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 exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres;"
-4- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018 Therefore any vehicle which is mechanically propelled and which is adapted for use upon roads falls within this definition. Further, Section 2(21) defines a "light motor vehicle" as follows:
"2. (21) 'light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or roadroller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms;"
It is to be seen that a roadroller is specifically included in the definition of a light motor vehicle. If a roadroller is a light motor vehicle then it is a motor vehicle. It is settled law that if the intention of the legislature is clear and unambiguous, then courts cannot ignore clear wording and hold to the contrary. As the Act categorically provides that a roadroller is a motor vehicle, we fail to understand how the High Court, even after noticing the definition, could have held that roadroller was not a motor vehicle."
Relying on the above judgments, he submits that the issue in question is set at rest in view of above two judgments with regard to Road Roller.
6. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6 further submits that in light of the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and this aspect has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anima Manna and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4095. He refers paragraphs 8, 13 and 15 of the said judgment, which read as under:
"8. Mr. Sanjay Paul, learned advocate for appellant- insurance company submits that the offending vehicle is a fork lift truck and is a machine which is not meant to be plied on public road. The insurance policy issued by the insurance company is a contractor plant and machinery insurance policy and not a vehicular policy. The Clause (h) to the exceptions in the insurance policy (Exhibit-B) provides that the loss/damage in transit on a public road would not be indemnified by the insurance company. Since the alleged vehicle was plied on a public road on the relevant date of accident hence there was violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy and the policy being a plant and machinery policy and not a vehicular policy the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the income of the victim at Rs. 10,000/- per month and failed to appreciate that such claim is not supported by any cogent documentary evidence. He
-5- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018 further submits that the learned Tribunal erred in granting Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and agony. Further the rate of interest on the compensation needs to be scaled down bearing in mind the prevalent banking rate of interest. In light of his aforesaid submission, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal and/or modification of the same.
xxx xxx xxx
13. Firstly, whether the offending vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act; secondly, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation; thirdly, whether the learned Tribunal erred in determining the income of the victim; fourthly, whether the learned Tribunal erred in granting compensation under pain and agony; and lastly, whether the rate of interest on the compensation amount needs to be scaled down from 8% per annum;
xxx xxx xxx
15. Bearing in mind the aforesaid definition, it is found from the insurance policy (Exhibit-B) that the vehicle is a fork lift truck having a chassis number. D.W.1 in his cross- examination stated that the fork lift truck has big wheels on the back side and medium wheel on the front side. Thus it is not in dispute that the fork lift truck is fitted with wheels to move from one place to other. Therefore, the fork lift truck is adapted for use on roads. Admittedly, the said vehicle has been registered under the Motor Vehicles Act. D.W.1 has also admitted in cross-examination that the offending vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Act and can move on its own. From the above materials it goes without saying that the offending vehicle is a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Banik, learned advocate for respondent no. 1 relying on Bose Abraham (supra), P. Kothandam (supra) and Anjutai (supra) in this regard."
Relying on the above judgment, Mr. Shresth Gautam submits that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award.
7. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants- respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that there is no illegality in the award and the learned Tribunal has rightly interpreted the insurance policy and passed the award. He further submits that I.A. No.7313 of 2024 has been filed for withdrawing the deposited amount before the learned Tribunal by the insurance company.
-6- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018
8. It is an admitted position that the accident took place on 26.11.2012 and the deceased Sunil Kumar Sao received serious injuries and subsequently he died. The deceased was said to be a Mechanic of Scooter and Motorcycle and his earning was Rs.15,000/- per month. The Court has looked into the insurance policy, which has been received along with the records of the learned trial court and the said insurance policy is in the form of Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy bearing No.500700/44/11/07/30001313 and it was valid from 18:00 hours of 23/03/2012 to midnight of 22/03/2013. Thus, it transpires that during the validity of insurance policy, the accident took place. The schedule, specifications of insured items and extensions are prescribed in the Contractors Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy and for the sake of brevity, the same reads as under:
"CONTRACTORS PLANT AND MACHINERY INSURANCE POLICY SCHEDULE Policy No. 500700/44/11/07/30001313 Prev. Pol. No. ///////// Name of Insured G R INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED Tel(O) FAX Tel (R) Mobile Business/Occupation Business E-mail Period of Insurance From 18:00 Hours of To Midnight of 22/03/2013 23/03/2012 CO-INSURANCE DETAILS: UIIC 500 700 100% PREMIUM: RUPEES SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE ONLY Premises/Works Address: ANY WORKSITE IN INDIA SPECIFICATIONS OF INSURED ITEMS Sr. Qnt Description Locatio Year of Sum Excess AOG Escalation No y of Items n Manufacturin insured in Rs. Excess % . (type, Details g in Rs. in Rs.
manufacture
, capacity
1 1 A SET OF ANY 2010 20,92,61 20,926/ 41,852/ 0
DYNAPA WORK 4 - -
SOIL SITE IN
COMPACTO INDIA
-7- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018
R CA-250D,
REG NO. JH-
01-AE-4986,
ENGINE
NO.65121N
71570310,
CHASSIS
NO.6284871
6
EXTENSIONS
TPL Any One Accident SI: Rs.2,09,231.40
TPL Any One Person SI: Rs.2,09,261.40
TPL All Accidents: Rs.2,09,261.40
Surrounding Property: Rs.2,09,261.40
Express Freight: Rs.00
Air Freight: Rs.00
Removal of Deons: Rs.00
Additional Custom Duty: Rs.00
Earthquake Cover Is Included
Foater Risk is Included
Policy Premium: Rs.5,792.44
Terrorism Loading Rs.690.56
Service Tax: Rs.668.00
Stamp Duty: Rs.1.00
Total: Rs.7,151.00
Receipt No.: 500700/81/11/0000009658
Receipt Date: 27/03/2012
Service Tax Regn. No.: AAACU5552CST001
Agency/Broker Code: 88888210
Dev. Officer Code: 7777771
Subject to Terms, Conditions, Endorsements and Clauses printed herein. Term of Proposal and Declaration: 23/03/2012 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned being duly authorized has hereunto set his/her hand at KOLKATA the 27th day of October, 2014 For United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Affix Policy Stamp Here Authorised Signatory"
From the above column of extension, it is crystal clear that under the head of third party liability (TPL), payment has also been made.
9. Exclusion under the TPL extension is also part of the said policy, which reads as under:
"EXCLUSION UNDER THE TPL EXTENSION The Company will not indemnly the insured, under this
-8- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018 extension in respect of
a) The first amount of policy excess of each claim for any one occurrence related to property damage.
b) Expenditure incurred in doing or redoing or making good or repairing or replacing any thing covered or coverable under the policy
c) Liability consequent upon I. bodily injury to or illness of employees/workmen/members of the families of the insured or of the owners of the works/ site/ premises location or of any other firm/contractors connected with any other work at the works/site/premises/ location.
II. loss of or damage or property belonging to or held in trust by or under custody of the owner of the works/site/ premises/location of any other firms/contractors or any employee/workmen/family members of any of the aforesaid.
III. any accident cost by vehicles licensed for general road or by waterborne vessels or used aircraft.
IV. any agreement by the insured to pay any sum by way of indemnity or otherwise unless such liability work have attached also in the absence of such agreement."
10. At this stage, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in light of c(III) of the said exclusions under the TPL extension, the Road Roller was plying on general road and in view of that, the accident is excluded.
11. If a Road Roller is being utilized for any construction work, it is required to move from one place to another and if the vehicle is fit and suitable for being used on a road, it is immaterial whether it runs on a private road or on a public road unless it is shown that it is of a special type adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises and incapable of running on any other type of roads or public roads. A road roller is clearly not such a vehicle which can be said to be incapable of running on roads, public or private. Thus, the Court is not accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to exclusion.
-9- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018
12. Sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:
"2(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 exceeding [twenty-five cubic centimetres]."
13. Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988 reads as under:
"2(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus 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 1[7500] kilograms."
14. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is a Road Roller. Sub-section (21) of Section 2 of the Act, 1988 defines light motor vehicle which includes Road Roller. Thus, Road Roller is coming within the meaning of light motor vehicle.
15. Section 10 of the Act, 1988 speaks of form and contents of licenses to drive, wherein, in Sub-section (2)(d) and (i) provides that for light motor vehicle and Road Roller, license is required.
16. Rules 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules, 1989 speak of the format for applying for license of plying Road Roller in Form-2.
17. Further, Rule 2(cab) of the Rules, 1989 defines construction equivalent vehicle. Thus, there is no doubt that the Road Roller is included in the definition of the Motor Vehicles Act.
18. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Manager Legal, M/s. Future Generali Insurance Company Limited v. Manjulata Rout and others (supra) is concerned, in that case, the Hon'ble Orissa High Court has found that the nature of risk
-10- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018 was not covered under the policy and in view of that, the said order has been passed. What has been discussed hereinabove, the facts of the present case is otherwise. In the case in hand, the insurance policy also speaks of third party liability. Thus, that judgment is not helping the appellant-insurance company.
19. In view of the above discussions, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the award of the learned Tribunal as from the policy itself, it transpires that the third party liability was there and even exclusion part is not restricting not to grant compensation, as has been discussed hereinabove.
20. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
21. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be sent back to the learned Tribunal, which will be utilized/adjusted in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants.
22. I.A. No.7313 of 2024, meant for withdrawal of the amount is disposed of with liberty to the claimants to move before the learned Tribunal for withdrawal of the amount.
23. Let the records of the learned trial court be sent back to the concerned court.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
-11- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 494 of 2018