Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Kumar Lalwani vs Musafir Manjhi And 2 Others on 30 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:190774
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2521 of 2025
Dinesh Kumar Lalwani
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Musafir Manjhi And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ajay Mishra, Vijay Kant Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the owner of the offending Tractor No.UP-78-T-9906 against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(South), Kanpur Nagar in MACP No. 606 of 2008, Musafir Manjhi & another Vs. Dinesh Kumar Lalwani & another, whereby in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a compensation of Rs.4,83,600/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(parents of deceased) for the untimely death of the Upendra(deceased) in a road accident which occurred on 29.08.2006, which was ordered to be paid by the owner of the offending Tractor No.UP-78-T-9906 on the ground that the tractor was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
2. Learned counsel for the owner-appellant submitted that he does not dispute the factum of accident and after accident, the owner had given an amount of Rs.1 lac to the claimants but still the claim petition was filed. He further submitted that at the time of the accident, no trolley was attached to the offending tractor, as such, no question arises that the tractor was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, the liability to pay compensation should have been fastened on the insurer of the offending tractor, but the tribunal has erred in fastening that liability on the owner of the offending tractor. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that the trolley attached to the tractor was loaded with bricks, as such, the finding of the tribunal in that regard is perverse and is liable to be set aside.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.
4. The Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & Ors. (2007) 7 SCC 56, held as under:-
8. The Tribunal in its award has, inter alia, noticed that the appellant herein had raised a specific defence, namely, the trolley was not insured. It does not appear that the said contention of the appellant had been gone into. There is nothing on record to show that the owner of the tractor had produced any insurance cover in respect of the trolley. It is furthermore not disputed that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of carrying out agricultural works. The representative of the Insurance Company Mr Hari Singh Meena on cross-examination merely accepted the suggestion that cutting the earth and levelling the field with earth would be an agricultural work but Respondent 1 himself categorically stated in his claim petition before the Tribunal that the earth had been dug and was being carried in the trolley to the brick kiln. Evidently, the earth was meant to be used only for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. Digging of earth for the purpose of manufacture of bricks indisputably cannot amount to carrying out of the agricultural work.
(emphasis supplied)
5. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs.Savitri Devi & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 554, held as under:-
8. After having gone through the award of the Claims Tribunal and the judgment and order [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri Devi, FAO No. 143 of 2000, decided on 28-7-2005 (HP)] passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, we are not able to understand as to how it has been found that the appellant Insurance Company can still be held liable to pay the amount of compensation as there has been a categorical finding by both the courts recording that the vehicle in question was insured only as ?goods carrying vehicle?. The custom of carrying barat in the village on the said truck will not be sufficient to hold the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. Admittedly, the appellant Insurance Company would not know unless the accident takes place as to for what purpose the vehicle in question was being used. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy are very clear and categorical and it creates a specific bar on carrying of any passengers, except the employees other than the driver, not exceeding six (6) in number, who should also come under the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
9. The specific case of the claimants was that the barat was being taken in the said open truck on 12-11-1996 when the accident had taken place. Thus, according to us, it clearly violates the terms and conditions of the policy.
6. It is apparent that the owner-appellant had filed his written statement before the tribunal in which he admitted the factum of accident and also submitted that an amount of Rs.1 lac was given to the deceased's father on account of compromise. He further submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. The offending tractor was never driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver.
7. The claimants examined the father of the deceased Musafir Manjhi as PW-1 and eye witness Sarvan as PW-2. The owner of the offending tractor examined himself as DW-2, whereas on behalf of the insurance company G.D. Gupta was examined as DW-1.
8. PW-1 very fairly accepted that he was not an eye witness of the accident. PW-2 Sarvan specifically deposed in examination-in-chief that on the day of the accident, he alongwith Upendra was going in a tractor trolley of Dinesh Kumar, which was loaded with bricks from Madhobagh to Barra Kanpur, then at about 04.00 AM, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the tractor overturned due to which Upendra was crushed beneath the trolley, who suffered grievous injury and died subsequently. Again in cross examination by the insurance company, he deposed that at the time of the accident he, Upendra and two others(four in total), were present in the tractor trolley in which Upendra was sitting on top of the bricks in the tractor trolley and the other persons were sitting besides the driver. He also deposed that the accident occurred at about 04.00 AM and police had arrived on the spot. He also admitted that he had given a statement to the Investigating Officer, stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, whose trolley was loaded with bricks and had overturned, resulting in Upendra being crushed to death.
9. Although the owner DW-2 denied that on the date of the accident the tractor was not being used for transporting the bricks loaded in the trolley but from the evidence of eye witness PW-2 Sarvan, it is apparent that the tractor was indeed transporting bricks which were loaded in the trolley attached with the tractor.
10. Learned counsel for the owner-appellant has admitted that tractor was only insured for agricultural purposes, as such, it is apparent that the tractor was being used for commercial purposes, for transporting bricks, which was not covered under the insurance policy. It is apparent that the tractor was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, the tribunal has not erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the owner-appellant.
11. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 19.07.2025 is affirmed.
15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 30, 2025
Himanshu
