Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 25/8/2012, respondent No. 1 was working at the field/farm of respondent No. 2 when tractor vide registration No.M.P. 07-H-8632 got stuck in a pit and to pull out the tractor from the pit, another tractor was called for and tied to the tractor stuck in the pit with a rope. Driver Chatur Singh tried to drive the stranded tractor out of the pit, but somehow things could not move out in the right direction because tractor toppled and went turtle causing injury to respondent No. 1, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and suffered an injury in his spine which rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The tractor which caused the incident was insured with appellant-Insurance Company for the period 31st March, 2012 to 30th March, 2013; whereas, the date of incident is 25/8/2012, therefore, tractor was insured by the appellant-Insurance Company.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 matched the vehemence of the appellant in equal measure and submits that although substantial question of Law No. 1 refers that respondent No. 1 was sitting on the bonnet but the Court below has recorded finding in paragraph 31 of the impugned award that respondent No. 1 was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. Furthermore, the appellant-Insurance Company also pleaded in the memo of appeal (para 2 and 6) that respondent No. 1 was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and it is only for the purpose of substantial question of law No. (ii) the word bonnet has been erroneously inserted whereas instead of word bonnet the word mudguard ought to be read. Finding of facts cannot be disturbed in an appeal when the same has not been put to test by the appellant.

11. Regarding the substantial question of law No. (i), he further submits that the reliance placed by the appellant on Regulation 28 of Rules of Road Regulation is misconceived because the regulations are made for regulating road safety and cannot be applied for vehicles used in agricultural activities or for agricultural purposes. He reiterated his plea regarding insertion of word mudguard in place of word bonnet as according to him,respondent No. 1 was sitting on mudguard and not on bonnet, therefore, appellant/Insurance Company cannot be permitted to adopt this plea at this stage. He placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajkumari and Anr., 1992 ACJ 103 (M.P.). He submits that appellant/Insurance Company was required to establish negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 to absolve itself of liability which Insurance Company failed to do. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot take recourse to regulations made for plying vehicles on the road and they cannot be applied ipso facto to vehicles engaged in agricultural activities on field and farms. He relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the matter of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Imamsab & ors., {MFA No. 7837/2007 (WC)}.

17. Regarding substantial question of law No. (i):

In para 31 of the impugned award while considering the arguments of appellant/Insurance Company, trial Court recorded that respondent No. 1 was sitting on the mudguard. While referring to cross-examination of the respondent No. 1 also, the said fact remained intact. Therefore, the contention of respondent No. 1 gets justified when he submits that the word bonnet has wrongly been referred in the substantial question of law No. (i) and mudguard ought to have been referred in place of bonnet. Therefore, for the discussion purpose, it is clarified that respondent No. 1 was sitting over mudguard. Respondent No. 1 was working in the agricultural field of respondent No. 2. He specifically pleaded in his examination-in-chief also and his cross-examination remained un-rebutted in this regard. The question put forth by Insurance Company regarding documents for salary purpose, were rightly rejected by the Court below because in unorganized sector , it cannot be expected from any worker to get regular appointment letter or accountable salary. The employer of respondent No. 1 i.e. respondent No. 2 was examined as PW/2 and he also accepted that respondent No. 1 was working in his field.