Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaideep @ Jagdeep vs Indrawati And Ors on 13 February, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-5396-2017 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5396-2017 (O&M)
JAIDEEP @ JAGDEEP
..Appellant
Versus
INDRAWATI AND OTHERS
..Respondents
Reserved on: 19.12.2025
Pronounced on: 13.02.2026
Uploaded on: 17.02.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO
Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Balraj Singh Rathee, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate
for Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/driver-cum- owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 27.07.2017 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.11,05,000/- to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.
1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:45 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -2- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.12.2015, deceased Ram Dhari S/o Mai Dhan loaded sugarcane from his field in tractor- trolley No.HR11E-7513 at 5 pm. Deceased- Ram Dhari and his son Sandeep left for Sugar Mill Ahulana (Gohana). The tractor was being driven by deceased- Ram Dhari, and his son Sandeep was sitting on the left side seat of the tractor. At about 16.15 pm, they reached 2 KM ahead of Petrol pump on Gohana-Meham Road. In the meanwhile, the offending vehicle i.e. tractor No. HR11F-1937 came from back side. The offending tractor was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. The offending tractor struck to the tractor of the deceased- Ram Dhari S/o Mai Dhan. Resultantly, the trolley attached with the offending tractor came upon the tractor of the deceased. Sandeep S/o Ram Dhari fell at a distance in the ditches and deceased Ram Dhari came underneath the said trolley of the offending tractor. After seeing the accident, respondent no.1 fled from there, leaving the offending vehicle on the spot. Sandeep S/o Ram Dhari and other passersby took out the deceased Ram Dhari from the tractor and took him to Government Hospital for treatment, but Ram Dhari was declared dead by the doctors of Government Hospital, Gohana. The postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased-Ram Dhari was conducted in General Hospital, Gohana on 25.12.2015. On the basis of statement of Sandeep S/o Ram Dhari, police registered a case arising out of F.I.R. No.355 dated 25.12.2015, Police Station Baroda under sections 279/337 and 304A of IPC against the respondent no.1.
2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -3-
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
" 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR- 11F-1937 by its driver-respondent No. 1 on 24.12.2015, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Baroda resulting into death of Ram Dhari, as alleged? OPP.
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable and petitioners have no cause of action and locus- standi to file the present claim petition ? OPR.
4. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident if so its effect? OPR.
5. Whether respondent no.1 was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. HR-11F-1937 in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy ? OPR.
6. Relief."
5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3. However, the appellant/driver-cum-owner was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal.
3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -4- SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellant/driver-cum-owner. It is contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the material available on record as well as the settled position of law.
8. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that no separate premium had been paid in respect of the attached trolleys (trailers) and, on that premise, exonerating the Insurance Company from its statutory liability to indemnify the insured and to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant. According to the learned counsel, the approach adopted by the Tribunal in absolving the insurer is legally unsustainable and contrary to the terms of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant/driver-cum-owner also assails the finding of the Tribunal that the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle was holding only a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) driving licence without any specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. In support of his submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 INSC 576, wherein it has been held that a person holding a valid driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle of such class without any separate endorsement.
4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -5-
10. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, he prays that the impugned award to the extent of fastening liability upon the appellant/driver- cum-owner be set aside and the present appeal be allowed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4- Insurance Company supports the award passed by the learned Tribunal.
12. He further contends that insurance policy (Ex.R-1) was issued for use of tractor/offending vehicle for agricultural purposes only. However, the offending vehicle was used for commercial purposes, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly absolved the respondent No.4-Insurance Company for paying compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
13. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3-claimants contends that compensation awarded is on lower side and claimants-respondents No.1 to 3 have preferred separate appeal bearing No.FAO-3408-2022, titled as Indrawati and others Vs. Jaideep @ Jagdeep and another seeking enhancement of compensation, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case with their able assistance.
15. Before proceeding further it is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the award. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
"14. Now the question for determination is whether both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that respondent no.1 had 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -6- attached two trolleys (trailers) with his tractor and no premium was paid for these trolleys (trailers) and therefore insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. He has further argued that the offending vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle and respondent no.1 was not having driving license to drive the transport vehicle and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
15. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is no evidence on record to prove that the offending vehicle was being used as transport vehicle. He has further contended that the respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and it may recover the same from the respondent no.1, if, respondent no.1 violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Fahim Ahmad & Ors vs. United India Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors, , 2014 (2) Law Herald (P&H) 1437 (SC) and Manuara Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors, 2017 (1) Law Herald (SC) 512.
16. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions raised by Ld. counsel for the parties. The F.I.R. Ex.P1 shows that two trolleys (trailers) were attached with the tractor of respondent no.1 and sugarcanes were loaded in the trolleys (trailers). It also shows that the accident took place when the offending tractor tried to overtake the tractor of the deceased- Ram Dhari.
6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -7-
17. RW1 Sh. Namrata Dawar, Sr. Executive of respondent no.2 i.e. the Insurance Company has deposed that the offending vehicle was got insured as miscellaneous and special types of vehicle and not as a goods carrier vehicle. He has also deposed that the trolleys (trailers) attached with the tractor were not insured with the insurance company as no premium was ever received by the insurance company for these trolleys attached with the tractor. Insurance Policy Ex.R1 does not show that any premium was paid by respondent no.1 for these trolleys. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of 'The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Sohan Lal & Ors.2013 (1), PLR 706" that if premium has not been paid and insurance has not been taken for a trolley (trailer) attached to the tractor, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It has also been held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of 'Subhash Chand & Ors vs. Satya Rani and Ors,, 2013 (3), PLR, 329,' that a tractor with trolley attached is a transport vehicle as defined under Motor Vehicle Act and it requires a special endorsement u/s 3 of Motor Vehicle Act. If there was no special endorsement, he will not be said to be duly licensed. In the present case, the driving license of respondent no.1 Ex.R3 shows that the respondent no.1 was authorised to drive light motor vehicle (non- transport). There is no endorsement at transport vehicle on the driving license Ex. R3. Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent no.1 was not having valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle.
18. Since respondent no.1 was not having valid driving license to drive the alleged offending vehicle and the trolleys (trailers) attached with the offending vehicle were not insured, it is concluded that the respondent no.2 7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -8- is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, this issue is partly decided in favour of the petitioners."
16. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal has proceeded to fasten the liability upon the appellant-owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle by absolving the Insurance Company on two principal grounds, namely: (i) that the trolley (trailer) attached to the tractor was not separately insured as no separate premium had been paid and (ii) that the appellant/driver-cum-owner was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, there being no specific endorsement in that regard.
17. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds that both the aforesaid findings are legally unsustainable in view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
18. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, the Ld. Tribunal has held that since no separate premium was paid for the attached trolley, the Insurance Company stood absolved of its liability. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Honnamma, (2025) ACJ 1002 (SC), has categorically held that the insurer cannot avoid its liability merely on the ground that the trailer attached to the tractor was not separately insured. The Apex Court has clarified that when a tractor is duly insured and the trailer is attached for the purpose for which such vehicle is ordinarily used, the insurer cannot escape liability towards third-party claimants on hyper-technical grounds relating to separate insurance of the trailer.
8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -9-
19. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, the reasoning adopted by the learned Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company on the premise that the trolley required a separate policy is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cannot be sustained.
20. Equally untenable is the finding of the Ld. Tribunal that the appellant/driver-cum-owner was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the ground that there was no specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. The larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan's case (supra) has unequivocally held that a person holding a valid driving licence to drive a "Light Motor Vehicle" is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class, and no separate endorsement is required.
21. The said legal position has been reiterated and affirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2024 INSC 840, wherein it has been held that a driver holding a valid LMV licence is competent to drive a transport vehicle of that class having a gross vehicle weight not exceeding 7500 kilograms, without any separate endorsement.
22. In the present case, the driving licence (Ex.R3) establishes that the appellant/driver-cum-owner was authorised to drive a Light Motor Vehicle. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the offending vehicle exceeded the prescribed weight limit so as to fall outside the ambit of the 7500 kgs. In such circumstances, the finding of the Ld. Tribunal that the 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -10- appellant/driver-cum-owner was not duly licensed is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
23. In light of the settled proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal erred in absolving the Insurance Company of its liability and in fastening the same upon the appellant/owner-cum-driver. The impugned findings, being contrary to binding precedent, are untenable in the eyes of law and are accordingly set aside.
24. So far as the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company, to the effect that the policy (Ex.R-1) was issued for agricultural purposes and that the appellant-driver-cum-owner was allegedly using the offending vehicle (tractor) for commercial purposes, is concerned, the same is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected.
25. A perusal of the record reveals that at the relevant time, the tractor in question was transporting sugarcane in a trolley from the appellant's own agricultural field. There is no material on record to suggest that the vehicle was being used for any commercial or hire-and-reward purpose. Transporting agricultural produce from one's own farm is an activity intrinsically and inseparably connected with agricultural operations. Indeed, if the carriage of sugarcane harvested from the field to another location incidental to cultivation is not treated as an agricultural use, it is difficult to conceive what would fall within the ambit of "agricultural purpose."
26. It is well settled that the expression "agricultural purpose" must receive a purposive and practical interpretation, having regard to the realities 10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 ::: FAO-5396-2017 (O&M) -11- of agricultural activity, which includes not only tilling and sowing but also harvesting and transportation of produce. The use of the tractor-trolley for carrying sugarcane from the farm, therefore, squarely falls within the scope of agricultural use contemplated under the policy.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Insurance Company cannot evade or disclaim its statutory liability under the policy on the untenable plea of alleged commercial use. Consequently, the respondent-Insurance Company is made liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
28. It is, therefore, held that respondent No.4-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award and to pay the compensation to the claimant.
29. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
30. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
13.02.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 18-02-2026 21:12:46 :::