Allahabad High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. ... vs Phool Chandra And Ors. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46886 Court No. - 7 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 25 of 2012 Appellant :- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Its Regional Manager Respondent :- Phool Chandra And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Srivastava Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava along with Sri Divyam Krishna, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
3. The record indicates that the instant appeal was preferred by the Insurance Company along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The said application was allowed on 30th April, 2013 and since then none has put in appearance despite the office report dated 18.09.2023 indicating that service on the respondent nos. 1 to 3 is sufficient.
4. The record further indicates that on 09.07.2025, 14.07.2025 and 31.07.2025, the matter was adjourned but the fact remains that none had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.
5. Since the appeal is of the year 2011, accordingly, the Court has proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the appellant in absence of the respondents.
6. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 14.09.2011 passed in Claim Petition No. 175 of 2008 whereby the MACT/Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Lucknow in a death case awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,500/- in favour of the claimants-respondents along with 6% interest.
7. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the offending vehicle involved in the accident was a tractor bearing No. UP-41-J-1305. It is stated that since as per the admitted case as setout in the claim petition, the deceased was travelling on the trailer attached with the said tractor which is said to have overturned, causing death, and the trailer not being separately insured, it would amount to the vehicle being not insured and in such circumstances, the award could not be saddled on the Insurance Company.
8. It is further submitted that the fact that the trailer has to be separately insured has been noticed by the Apex Court in the case of Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 2387 wherein the Apex Court took note of the fact that since the trailer was not insured, hence, it did not saddle the compensation on the Insurance Company.
9. It is further urged that though in a later decision of the Apex Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Honnamma and others; 2025 SCC Online SC 1027, there has been a divergence in the view and in it has been noticed by the Apex Court that the trailer does not require separate insurance.
10. It is urged that there being a divergence of opinion, it is the earlier decision which is binding and in that context, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Dhondubai (supra) would be applicable in the present case as well and for the said reason, the award passed against the Insurance Company cannot be sustained and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others; 2017 (16) SCC 680, Commissioner of Sales Tax, J&K and others Vs. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others; 1995 (1) SCC 58 to buttress his contentions regarding the law on precedents and that the earlier decision is binding and the High Court is required to follow the law as laid in the earlier judgment in Dhondubai (supra).
12. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeal, it will be relevant to take note of certain facts giving rise to the instant appeal.
13. On 19.02.2008 at around 09:00 AM, Kumari Uma Bharati had gone to the place of Sri Akil Ahmad for onward movement towards the agricultural fields for doing the job of a labour.
14. It is stated that she had sat on the tractor and trolley bearing No. UP-41-J-1305 along with other labourers who were going to fields for agricultural work. It was stated that on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley driver, the said tractor overturned and Km. Uma Bharati got trapped under the tractor and she expired on the spot.
15. The parents of Km. Uma Bharati filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was registered as Claim Petition No. 175 of 2008. The claim petition was contested by the owner and driver of the Tractor Akil Ahmad as well as the Insurance Company with whom the tractor-trolley was insured. The owner denied the accident and further stated that the the driver of the tractor had a valid and subsisting driving license and the tractor was also duly insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. The Insurance Company also filed its separate written statement and raised the general defences.
16. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues.Thereafter considering the evidence both oral and documentary, it recorded a finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.UP-41-J-1305. It also recorded a finding that the driver of the tractor had a valid license and it was also duly insured with the Insurance Company.
17. The Tribunal then went ahead to calculate the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,500/- along with 6% interest by means of award dated 14.09.2011 which is under challenge in this appeal.
18. The issue before this Court is as to whether the award could have been passed against the Insruance Company on the ground that the trailer attached with the tractor was not insured.
19. In order to answer the aforesaid issue, it will be relevant to notice the averments made in the claim petition. In the claim petition, it was clearly noticed that the deceased got crushed under the tractor-trolley and expired on the spot.
20. In the written statement which was filed by the Insurance Company on 27.05.2008, it denied that the said tractor-trolley was insured with the company.
21. The record further indicates that the owner filed his written statement on 20.02.2009 wherein in paragraph 4, it was stated that the tractor was duly insured with the National Insurance Company for the period 18.4.2007 to 17.04.2008 and the details of the policy was also mentioned.
22. At this stage, it will be relevant to notice that once the owner had given the details of the Insurance Policy and also filed the relevant documents on record along with the document list on 20.02.2009 but the Insurance Company did not amend its written statement to deny the said specific plea regarding the vehicle being insured. Thus, the result was that there was a bland denial of the Insurance Company that the tractor itself was not insured.
23. It is in light of these pleadings that the Tribunal framed the issues and issue no. (ii) was to the effect as to whether the tractor-trolley was insured with the company and it was being driven according to the policy conditions.
24. It is in this regard, the evidence of the Insurance Company becomes relevant and the record indicates that on behalf of the Insurance Company, Smt. Sudha Jaiswal was examined as a witness who was the Administrative Officer. In her statement, she admitted that the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company for the period 18.04.2007 to 17.04.2007. In her cross-examination, she admitted that the tractor was duly insured and the company had received a premium of Rs. 3,592/- and that the tractor was being utilized for agricultural purposes. The driver of the tractor had a valid license was also a fact which was not disproved nor it could be shown as to whether there was any violation of the policy conditions.
25. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the tractor-trolley were attached at the time of the accident and it is also not disputed that the tractor was utilized for agricultural purposes and the death of Km. Uma Bharati is also not disputed.
26. In this factual backdrop, it will now be appropriate to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant on the case ofDhondubai (supra),however, from the perusal of the aforesaid decision, it would indicate that the claimant had approached the Apex Court since the High Court had held that the claimant was traveling in the trailer attached with the tractor which was not insured, though, the tractor was insured and it is for the very same reason, the High Court had exonerated the Insurance Company, however, the Apex Court in paragraph 5 and 6 clearly noticed that wherever the trailer was not insured, the Apex Court exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and directed the Insurance Company to pay. It is in the very same context that even inDhondubai (supra), the Insurance Company was directed to pay the award and was granted the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
27. At this stage, it may also be noticed that a decision rendered Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not lay down a precedent as the said decision is passed by the Apex Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances; (See Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, 2017 (14) SCC 809, Union of India v. Onkar Nath Dhar, 2021 (19) SCC 163 and Indian Bank V. ABS Marine Products (P) Ltd., 2006 (5) 5 SCC 72.)
28. In view of the aforesaid, though the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) andPine Chemicals(supra)is not disputed but its applicability in the instant case is doubtful for the reason that if the decision of the Apex Court inDhondubai (supra)being an order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India may not be binding and whereas the decision inHonnamma (supra)becomes a binding precedent for this Court.
29. Now, if the decisions of the Apex Court in Honamma (supra) is seen, it would indicate that the Apex Court was clearly confronted with the fact as to whether a tractor, though insured, but the trailer is not insured, in such circumstances, could the Insurance Company be made liable. The Apex Court inHonamma (supra)had also noticed the earlier decisions including the case of Dhondubai (supra) in paragraph 11 and 12 and thereafter considering the facts of the case, that it is the proximate cause of the accident which has to be seen. It observed that in case if the trolley/trailer is not attached with the tractor while the accident occurs then the trailer/trolley being standalone and the tractor is not insured then in such circumstances, the Insurance Company may not be liable for the award but if the same is attached with the tractor and the accident occurs then while the tractor is insured then the proximate cause of the accident is the tractor, which is insured then the compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company. The relevant portion is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-
"11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example : that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate : if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.
13. In Dhondubai (supra), the Court stated:
?5. In a matter of the present nature, the law is well settled that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured. Therefore, in a normal circumstance, when the appellant/claimant was travelling in the trailer which was not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company cannot be fastened and to that extent the High Court was justified.?
(emphasis supplied)
14. To our mind, the learned Judges in Dhondubhai (supra) did not lay down an absolute principle of law, but taking note of Oriental Insurance Co. Limited v. Brij Mohan, (2007) 7 SCC 56, it was ordered that the ?respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the amount awarded by the High Court as compensation with the accrued interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.? A decision by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa District v. Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830 is relevant:
?1. This case has come before this Court on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court as it was contended before the learned Single Judge by the appellant that as the trailer in which the deceased was travelling was not insured, although it was attached to the tractor which was insured, therefore no liability could be fastened upon the insurer.
xxx
13. Now on analysis of these judgments and the provisions of law which have been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka Peddi Reddy (supra) and the reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. We reproduce the Para 26 of the said judgment as under:
?The word ?vehicle? mentioned in Section 147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated in Section 146. Therefore, the expression vehicle wherever appearing in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as motor vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self-propelled vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in Chapter XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter X in case of no fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether a death or a permanent disability of any person has been resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no reference to vehicle as such. This aspect was never considered in any of the decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and also for other side.??
30. In light of the above, it is clear that the Apex Court has held that since the trailer was attached with the tractor which was the cause of the accident, hence, the award is to be made good by the Insurance Company.
31. Applying the principles in the instant case, it would reveal that the Insurance Company had admitted that the tractor was insured. It is also an admitted case that the tractor was being utilized for the agricultural purposes and it is also admitted that the trolley was attached to the tractor which was the cause of the accident and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Tribunal is bad in the eyes of law or contrary to the settled legal provisions.
32. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any error committed by the Tribunal while passing the award, hence, theawarddated 14.09.2011 passed in Claim Petition No. 175 of 2008 by the MACT/Special Judge, Anti Corruption Court, Lucknowis affirmed. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to be released in favour of the claimants-respondents and any shortfall shall also be made good. Any amount already paid to the claimants-respondents shall be adjusted and the remaining be paid within a period of 60 days with up to date interest to the claimants-respondents.
33. With the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. Costs are made easy. The record of the Tribunal be returned forthwith.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Asheesh/-