Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Ishwanti And Others on 22 May, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
FAO No.123 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No.123 of 2010
(in MACT Petition No.131 of 18.12.2008)
Date of decision: 22 .5.2012
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
...Appellant
Versus
Ishwanti and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate,
for the respondent(s).
-.-
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company assailing the impugned Award dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, (for short, 'the learned Tribunal'), holding the appellant liable to indemnify the claimants.
The brief facts of the appeal in hand are that on 10.07.2008, the deceased, Amarjeet, went to the fields for preparing the land for sowing paddy crops on a Swaraj Tractor bearing registration No.HR- 12J-0865, being driven by the driver, Manjeet, respondent No.4 herein. The deceased was sitting on the mud-guard of the said tractor. When the driver, respondent No.4 was driving the tractor in the fields, the rear wheel of the tractor got struck in the mud, the front portion thereof got raised in the air FAO No.123 of 2010 -2- and suddenly fell down. Due to this, the deceased fell on the front portion of the tractor with a jerk and fell down in the fields. Resultantly, the deceased sustained grievous injuries in his abdomen. He was removed to the PGIMS Rohtak where he succumbed to the injuries.
In this background, the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, Amarjeet, preferred claim petition No.131 of 18.12.2008, seeking compensation on account of the death of their unmarried son in the accident which took place on 10.07.2008.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the accident in question took place by use of motor vehicle bearing registration No.HR-12J-0865 by the respondent No.2 on 10.7.2008? OPP.
2. Whether Amarjeet Son of Shri Vijay Pal died due to the injuries received by him in the accident, if so, to what amount of compensation and from whom, the petitioners are entitled to? OPP.
3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR.
4. Relief.
Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimant-
appellants by holding that the deceased Amarjeet died due to the injuries received by him in the accident which took place by the use of the offending tractor. While deciding Issue No.3, it was held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claimants as the deceased was, although travelling on a tractor, but was helping in the agricultural operation at the time of the FAO No.123 of 2010 -3- accident. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimant-appellants and they were held entitled to an amount of ` 3,28,500/- as compensation in equal shares.
Hence, the present appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company, inter alia, on the points of liability and quantum.
Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has gravely erred in passing the Award dated 27.10.2009 vide which the owner, driver and Insurance Company were held liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation. She further submitted that the deceased was sitting on the tractor and the tractor was not meant for carrying the passengers and risk of the passengers was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. She contended that the seating capacity of the tractor was only one and in case of any accident, the driver of the tractor has to be idemnified as per the terms of the policy as only ` 25/- has been charged as liability of the tractor driver. She further contended that the Ld. Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was not a passenger and was helping in the cultivation of the land and the claimants of the deceased are entitled for the compensation. In support of her contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on National Insurance Co. Lt.d. v. V.Chinnamma (SC) 2005(1) L.J.R 145 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors. 2007(3) R.C.R (Civil) 271. Learned counsel prayed that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the Insurance Company be absolved of the liability.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly observed that the deceased was not a passenger on the tractor but was helping in the agricultural work. He FAO No.123 of 2010 -4- was not traveling for pleasure or was not going from one place to another. He submitted that the Ld. Tribunal has rightly returned issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As per the case of the claimants the deceased Amarjeet was traveling on a tractor with his brother Manjeet. While Manjeet was driving the tractor, Amarjeet was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Manjeet was working in the muddy fields. All of a sudden the rear wheel of the tractor got struck in the mud and the front portion of the tractor went up in the air and suddenly fell down. Due to the result and jolt, Amarjeet sitting on the mudguard fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries on his abdomen and succumbed to his injuries. There is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the seating capacity of the tractor was one and there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The deceased was sitting on the tractor on his own risk. The tractor was insured for the driver and not for any other person/passenger, as the premium paid was for the driver only. A perusal of Exh.R-2, photocopy of registration of tractor shows that seating capacity of tractor is for one person i.e. driver. It is, therefore, plain logic that when the seating capacity of a tractor is for one person i.e. driver, the other person sitting on it, is not covered under the insurance policy. There is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Ld. Tribunal erroneously held that the amount of compensation be paid by all the respondents jointly and severally. The Insurance company should not be made liable for an occurrence, which takes place on a vehicle not meant FAO No.123 of 2010 -5- for passengers.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that since there is breach in the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company should be absolved of its liability. The findings of Ld. Tribunal are modified to this extent. The appeal is partly allowed.
22.5.2012 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi/MS JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No