Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyaso Bai And Anr. vs Mahendra Singh And Ors. on 9 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999ACJ1594
JUDGMENT Tej Shankar, J.
1. This appeal arising out of claim petition filed by the appellants Gyaso Bai and Pratap Singh raises a short question.
2. It appears that on 23.9.1991 the deceased Kamal Singh was going on the tractor-trolley Nos. HMT 3511 and 6167 to offer prayer at Karehwale Baba. Other persons were also sitting in the trolley which belonged to respondent No. 2. It was being driven by respondent No. 1 Mahendra Singh. The respondent No. 3 was the insurer. On the way, at the curve of Girwai Naka due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the tractor-trolley overturned as a result of which Kamal Singh died. A report was lodged at P.S. Janak Ganj, Gwalior and a case was got registered. Kamal Singh was a student of 12th class at the time of his death. The claimants being parents of the deceased claimed a total sum of Rs. 8,52,000 as compensation. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 absented and the case was contested by the insurance company, defendant No. 3. The defendant admitted the accident but alleged that the tractor-trolley was insured for agricultural purposes only. It could not be used for taking passengers. The learned Tribunal after taking the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent conduct of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It awarded a sum of Rs. 82,000 as compensation under various heads. The claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the claim amount to Rs. 95,000 only.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants did not raise any argument whatsoever with respect to the enhancement of compensation. He confined himself to only one argument. He urged that as tractor-trolley could also be used for carrying of passengers vide notification No. 4-22-83-VIII dated 30.9.1985, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. He urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should also be against the insurance company, as admittedly, the tractor-trolley was insured with the insurer. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also contended that the liability could not be fastened on them alone. The insurance company cannot be exonerated. No other argument has been placed. The learned Counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, argued that there is a specific contract that the tractor-trolley was to be used for agricultural purposes only and not for carrying of passengers. Consequently, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability. He placed reliance upon Harnam Singh v. Gajendra Singh, 1995 MPWN Vol II, Note 145 and Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh v. Phoolibai, 1993 ACJ 586 (MP).
4. As said earlier, the only question that is to be determined in this case is as to whether liability with respect to the sum awarded as compensation to the claimants can be fastened upon the insurer. Admittedly, the tractor-trolley was insured and the document in this regard is Exh. D-1. It clearly shows that there is a specific mention in bold letters 'For Agricultural Use Only'. This fact has not been contested by the learned Counsel for the claimants. A similar question had arisen in the aforesaid authority of Harnam Singh, 1995 MPWN Volume II, Note 145. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in that case awarded a sum of Rs. 46,800 on the driver, owner and insurer. The insurance company alone preferred appeal. This court remanded the matter and after retrial the Tribunal held that the insurer is not liable and passed award against the driver and owner of the vehicle exonerating the insurer. The owner preferred an appeal. This court rejected the appeal and confirmed the order observing that the policy shows that it covered liability against risk on account of accidents in the course of agricultural operations only and the accident did not take place in the course of agricultural operation. In the other case, which has been referred by the learned Counsel for respondent of Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh, 1993 ACJ 586 (MP), also the tractor and trolley were insured for agricultural purposes. It was used for transporting manure for commercial purposes at the time of accident resulting in the death of a labourer. The question arose was whether the insurance company was liable. This court took the view that as the vehicle was being used in violation of the insurance contract the insurance company was not liable. In the case in hand also, as mentioned earlier, the document Exh. D-1 shows that the insurance was for agricultural purposes only. Admittedly, the vehicle was not used for agricultural purposes but the deceased was going to see Kareh-wale Baba. It cannot be said that it was being used for agricultural purposes. Thus, the terms were violated. The fact that there is a notification of Government of Madhya Pradesh authorising carrying of persons at the time of mela, etc., will not entitle the claimants to have the claim against the insurer. The simple reason is that the terms of the contract were being violated. This notification cannot be used to avoid any action under the Motor Vehicles Act for carrying persons at the time of mela, etc., as mentioned therein. Consequently, I find no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the claim should have been decreed against the insurance company as well. To my mind, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in refusing the claim against respondent No. 3, the insurer. The appeal has thus no force and is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs.