Madhya Pradesh High Court
Branch Manager Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. ... vs Smt. Salita on 15 October, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52432
1 MA-2132-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 15 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 2132 of 2020
BRANCH MANAGER SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD.
Versus
SMT. SALITA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Lalitendra Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
The insurance company has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 02.11.2019, passed in Claim Case No. 23/2018 by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents/Claimants for compensation on account of death of Surya alias Suresh, the husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimants No.2 was allowed and compensation of Rs.14,15,800/-was awarded.
2. That, brief facts of the accident as stated in the claim application are that on 30/12/2017 at about 08:30 deceased Surya alias Suresh along with labours was returning after loading the grain, then non-applicant no. 1 driving the tractor no. M.P. - 12 -AB -0830 rashly and negligently hit the deceased causing grievous injuries on the body of deceased due to which he died. Accident was reported to the police whereupon offence was registered and after investigation police filed final report against non- applicant no. 1. Applicant claimed compensation jointly and severally against all the non-applicants i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the tractor.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 17-10-2025 19:07:24NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52432 2 MA-2132-2020
3. That, non-applicant no. 1, 2 filed written statement and thereafter became ex-parte. Non-applicant no. 3, present appellant filed written statement denying all the adverse allegation and contended that deceased along with other persons was traveling unauthorizedly upon the tractor in contravention to the rules and policy terms and conditions. Risk of any person traveling upon tractor is not covered in the insurance policy, therefore insurance company of tractor is not liable for any compensation. Breach of insurance policy terms and conditions on account of invalid driving license and use of tractor other than agricultural purpose was also pleaded. Non-applicant no. 3 is not liable for any compensation due to non-coverage of risk of deceased sitting upon the tractor in the insurance policy and also on account of breach of insurance policy terms and conditions.
4. That, the Appellant insurance company proved the defence that risk of deceased passenger was not covered in the insurance policy issued for tractor adduced evidence of its officer and exhibited insurance policy as Exhibit D-1. Tribunal after appreciation of evidence of witnesses and documents of criminal case papers reached to the conclusion that at the time of accident deceased was traveling upon the tractor and due to rash and negligent driving of non-applicant no. 1 he fell down from the tractor and died due to injuries sustained by him. Therefore risk of the person traveling upon the tractor being not covered in the insurance policy Ex. D-1 and tractor being used other than agricultural purpose, non-applicant no. 3 is not liable for any compensation; after holding so Tribunal directed that insurance company is not liable for any compensation but it shall make payment to the applicants and recover the same from owner of the tractor.
5. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record passed the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 17-10-2025 19:07:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52432 3 MA-2132-2020 award of Rs.14,15,800//- with interest @ 6% till payment is made, as compensation for the death of Surya alias Suresh against the Insurance company first pay and then to recover from the driver and owner of the vehicle without there being any liability of appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs.25000/- in compliance of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been deposited with the Tribunal by the appellant/insurance company.
6. The submissions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company are that the Claims Tribunal committed an error in settling the liability as to payment of the amount of compensation in spite of the fact that on the fateful day the deceased was siting on the bonnet of the insured tractor whereas the sitting capacity of the tractor is only for driver and carrying passenger on it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the relevant Act. In support of the contentions, the insurance company has placed reliance on Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shankarlal, MACD 2008 (2) (M.P.) 673.
7. Having examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, according to me, the legal position canvassed in the case of Phool Singh vs. Pankhi & others, 2004 ACJ 843 , wherein the trolley tilted and a passenger fell into ditch resulting in his death, a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. In the cases of Aarif and another vs. Urmilabai and others, 2004 ACJ 1496; United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Kamodi Bai and others, 2007 ACJ 2031; and, Nathu Singh Kushwaha and another vs. Narayan Singh and others, 1 (2011) ACJ 740, this Court has held that mudguard of the tractor is not meant for carrying passenger and thus there is no statutory Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 17-10-2025 19:07:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52432 4 MA-2132-2020 requirement to cover the risk of gratuitous passenger travelling on a tractor. It is evident from the record that the trolly attached with the tractor was not insured. Only the tractor was insured. The deceased was travelling in the trolly, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify loss. The contention of the appellant is not acceptable because at the time of incident the deceased was sitting on the bonnet of the tractor. The finding of the tribunal is that the deceased was travelling with the offending tractor and meanwhile on the way the tractor got stuck in the mud and when the driver was trying to pull it out of the mud, the deceased who was sitting on the bonnet of the tractor to help the driver fell down from the bonnet and got injured and resultantly succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. That finding was never challenged by the claimants.
8. As per the insurance policy (Ex.D/1), the tractor No. MP 12 AB 0830 was insured between the period from 21.03.2017 to 20.03.2018 with the appellant- insurance company under the "farmer and package insurance policy".
9. It is an admitted position that when the accident took place, the deceased Surya alias Suresh was sitting on the bonnet of the tractor involved in the accident. Sitting on the bonnet is against the policy of the insurance company as in the tractor except the driver seat, there is no other provision for sitting. The tractor involved in the accident was insured for agricultural purpose and no premium for carrying such passenger except driver of the vehicle is paid to the insurance company.
10. Obviously therefore there is no statutory obligation under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act for indemnifying the liability of the insurance company on behalf of the insured to satisfy the award. In that view of the matter, the finding of the learned Tribunal against the insurance company to the extent of indemnifying the liability of the insured in respect of claiming compensation is Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 17-10-2025 19:07:24 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:52432 5 MA-2132-2020 not sustainable.
11. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The direction whereby the appellant-insurance company was held liable to pay compensation is set aside. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be payable by the owner of the vehicle in question. Since the appellant-insurance company has deposited part of the amount under award, the Tribunal is directed to recover the amount from the owner and the appellant-insurance company will be entitled to get the amount deposited by it from the Tribunal. Cost of the appeal shall be borne by the owner of the offending vehicle. Counsel fee Rs.1500/-, if certified.
(PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE MSP Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 17-10-2025 19:07:24