[2023:RJ-JD:35732] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1063/2001 United India Insurance Company Limited Near Rotary Club, Residency Road, Jodhpur
----Appellant Versus
1. Smt. Chhataki widow of Sh. Laxman by caste Meghwal resident of Village Dadal, District Jalore
2. Sh. Rava Ram S/o Sh. Laxman Meghwal, resident of village Dadal, District Jalore
3. Sh. Mahadev Ram S/o Laxman, resident of village Dadal, District Jalore
4. Padma Ram S/o Sh. Laxman
5. Netha Ram S/o Sh. Laxman
6. Jhini D/o Sh. Laxman
7. Luka Ram S/o Sh. Laxman [respondent no.4 yo 7 are minor through legal guardian Mother Smt. Chhataki widow of Sh. Laxman Meghawla, resident of village Dalal, District Jalore.
Claimants
8. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh, resident of village Dala, District Jalore.
9. Bhanwar Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, resident of village Dadal, District Jalore
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Dadhich For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/2023 The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore (hereinafter (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:51:19 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35732] (2 of 3) [CMA-1063/2001] referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 160/1998 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 99,000/- as compensation to be recovered from the appellant-Insurance Company.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its entirety. It is submitted that the tractor was insured for 'agricultural use only' and at the relevant point of time, it was not being used for the said purpose. It is further submitted that the owner of the tractor has not paid any extra premium for the passengers. As per the policy, only the risk of driver was covered and at the time of accident, three persons were travelling in the tractor including the deceased-Laxman. Thus, there has been a violation of policy conditions and learned Tribunal while fastening the liability of 50% on the appellant- Insurance Company has failed to appreciate this vital aspect of the matter. Lastly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and award may be modified and the appellant-Insurance Company may be exonerated from its liability. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Chinnamma and Ors. passed in Appeal (civil) 5478/2004, decided on 25.08.2004.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
4. On a perusal of the Insurance Policy (Ex. A1), it is clear that the policy was for 'Agricultural Use Only'. In the pleadings of the (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:51:19 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:35732] (3 of 3) [CMA-1063/2001] claimants, it is stated that on the date of accident, the vehicle was being used for photography purpose. Further, from the perusal of policy it is clear that the premium was taken only for one person ie driver of the vehicle. No premium was taken by the Insurance Company for the passengers. It is an admitted position that the deceased was travelling on the tractor. Thus, there has been a violation of policy conditions as the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose and it carried passengers. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable.
5. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. It is held that the Appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability and the owner and driver are held liable for compensating the claimants. It is further directed that the Appellant-Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover any amount, if already paid by it to the claimants by way of appropriate proceedings.
6. Stay application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. No order as to costs.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 8-CPG/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:51:19 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)