Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor. The Respondent No.1 had sustained the injury as above; that, the injury resulted in the loss of six months' income, the injury caused him 70% disability; that, and the said disability resulted in the loss of the 70% income capacity as the Respondent No.1 cannot do the agriculture work as before. The Tribunal therefore, awarded the compensation Rs.16,04,005/-. The Tribunal held that, even though the subject policy of insurance was a 'Farmer's Package Policy', the risk of Respondent No.1 was covered and hence, directed the opponents to pay the compensation amount.

20.1) In the cross-examination OW1-Sukhprit Gurai admitted that a clause having heading "avoidance of certain terms and right of recovery" missing from the policy document (Exh.57); that, IMT endorsement Nos.21, 37 and 39 were not attached with the policy Manoj 1-FA-1043-2015.doc (Exh.56); that, the policy (Exh.57) was "Farmer's Package Policy"; that, Farmer's Package Policy is having cover of other policies; that, the tractor was insured under a "Commercial Vehicle Package Policy"

subject to fulfilment of all the terms and conditions of a Farmer's Package Policy; and that, commercial vehicle can be given on hire. He has denied that, he has deliberately produced the wrong policy (Exh.57) on record. He has denied that, there was no breach of the policy terms and conditions.

20.2) In view of the aforesaid evidence the Tribunal held that, the Appellant has filed an incomplete policy (Exh.57). It is held that, the tractor was insured under the commercial vehicle package policy subject to the fulfillment of all the terms and conditions of the Farmer's Package Policy. Tribunal also held that, since the subject policy (Exh.57) was the Farmer's Package Policy', the tractor was to be used in agricultural lands only. Therefore, the Tribunal held that, even if it is presumed that the Respondent No.1 had hired the tractor as above and, the tractor was used in the private agricultural land, the Respondent No.2 cannot be held to have committed the breach of policy terms and conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the contention that there was breach of the policy terms and conditions and to absolve the Appellant from compensation liability.

tractor was insured under a "Commercial Vehicle Package Policy"

subject to fulfillment all the terms and conditions of a Farmer's Package Policy; and that, commercial vehicle can be given on hire. It is common experience that in village areas, farmers holding small lands hire tractors of others from same or other villages, to expedite their agricultural operations. The Appellant or OW1-Sukhprit Gurai have not explained as to how the codition 'policy does not cover use for hire' would run contray to the use permitted under the said 'Cover 7 : Tractors'. As noted by the Tribunal, a complete policy document was not produced before the Tribunal by the Appellant. In this background, the Appellant cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation quantified as above.