Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajabeti And Anr. vs Ramshri And Ors. on 13 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ321
JUDGMENT Samvatsar, J.
1. This appeal is filed at the instance of owner and driver of the vehicle involved in an accident dated 26.11.1996 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the award dated 3.2.1998, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gohad, District Bhind, M.P. in Claim Case No. 7 of 1997.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant No. 1 is owner and the appellant No, 2 is the driver of the tractor No. MP 06-J 8451. On 26.11.1996, Ram Charan was travelling in the said vehicle. He was sitting on the edge of the trolley. He fell out of the tractor and was run over. He died in the said accident, hence his heirs, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed a claim petition for compensation. The Claims Tribunal found that the claimant himself was negligent and the negligence of the driver is not found proved. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, awarded Rs. 50,000 towards no fault liability to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
3. The Claims Tribunal exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle in question was an agriculture vehicle and was used for non-agriculture purpose, contrary to the terms of the insurance policy. The second ground on which the insurance company is exonerated is that, on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle has no valid licence.
4. The claimants have not filed any cross-objection or any independent appeal against the impugned award/order, hence, the question of quantum is not involved and the only question involved in this appeal is about liability of the insurance company.
5. The counsel for the appellants contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company. After perusing the original licence, which is on the record of the case and marked as Exh. NA-3; it is clear that the licence was issued in favour of appellant No. 2 driver on 22.11.1975 and was renewed from time to time till 29.9.1995. Thereafter, this licence was renewed on 6.9.1997 for a period started from 6.9.1997 to 5.9.2000. Thus, as per the said document, the licence was not renewed on the date of the accident, i.e., 26.11.1996.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the Division Bench judgment in case of Jagdish v. Rajkumar, 2002 ACJ 1124 (MP), in which the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation, even when the driver had no valid licence. After perusing the said judgment, particularly, para 4, it is clear that the High Court, in that case given a clear finding that the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver had no valid licence on the date of accident and in view of the said finding exonerated the insurance company. In the present case there is no such finding on the contrary the licence produced by the driver itself shows that it was not renewed on the date of the accident and was renewed subsequently. Thus, the facts of the case in the present case and in the case of the Division Bench judgment are quite distinguishable. The other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC), in that case, the Supreme Court has held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation as the Apex Court has came to the conclusion that the insurance company has failed to prove that the breach was committed with the knowledge and consent of the owner and, therefore, breach is not a wilful breach at the instance of the owner. But, in the present case, the statement of the owner Kriparam, NA No. 1, clearly shows that he was sitting near the driver in that vehicle at the time of the accident, therefore, it can be safely inferred that any breach committed was of his knowledge and consent. Thus, the said judgment also do not support the case of the appellants.
7. On the other hand, the counsel for the insurance company has relied on various judgments in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay, 1994 ACJ 987 (MP);
Gyaso Bai v. Mahendra Singh, 1999 ACJ 1594 (MP), in the case of Harnam Singh v. Gajendra Singh, 1995 MPWN Note 145 and in the case of Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh v. Phoolibai, 1993 ACJ 586 (MP). All these cases clearly lay down that the tractor is used for non-agriculture purpose and in that case, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. All these judgments consistently take a view that if a passenger is travelling in a tractor and meets with an accident then the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle is used for non-agriculture purpose and this amounts to breach of the terms of the policy.
8. In view of the aforesaid judgments, I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in exonerating the insurance company. Thus, this appeal is without any merits and is dismissed with no orders as to the costs.