Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company vs Nandlal Kol on 10 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12051
1 MA-2032-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 2032 of 2024
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
NANDLAL KOL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba - Advocate for the appellant-insurance company.
Shri Harsh Wardhan Singh - Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
Shri Sarang Soni - Advocate for the respondents No.3 and 4.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the award dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Third Additional Tribunal to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi (M.P.) in MACC No.170/2019 (Nandlal Kol and another Vs. Ravinandan Patel and others ) on a singular ground that since deceased was travelling on a tractor unauthorizedly and there is no provision for a gratuitous passenger on a tractor, impugned award directing the insurance company to pay and then recover from the owner driver, is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
2. Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in case of The National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Smt. Ram Murti Bai and others (M.A. No.588/2004, decided on 06.03.2019) and in case of Cholamandalam MS Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 3/11/2025 11:01:30 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12051 2 MA-2032-2024 General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Abdul Karim Khan and others (M.A. No.5896/2022, decided on 31.10.2023), in support of his contention.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-owner driver has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ranjeeta and others, (2022 (3) M.P.W.N. 72) in support of his case.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, facts of the present case are different. In Ranjeeta (supra) case was that of three persons sitting on a pick-up van, whereas in the present case, deceased was sitting on the bonnet of the tractor and, therefore, this judgment will not be applicable, inasmuch as, there is no seating capacity, except for driver on the tractor. Therefore, the impugned award of pay and recover is modified. It is directed that the insurance company shall stand exonerated and award is to be satisfied by the owner driver of the offending vehicle.
5. In above terms, appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA PATEL Signing time: 3/11/2025 11:01:30 AM