Bombay High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Vandana Rahul Kambale And Ors on 23 December, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1608 OF 2020
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur
Through its Authorized Signatory/Branch Manager,
ABC Complex, MIDC Chikalthana,
Near Prozone Mall, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad - 431 001 ... Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No.2)
VERSUS
1. Vandana w/O Rahul Kamble
Age: 28 YEARS, Occu: Labour,
2. Shidhart S/O Rahul Kamble
Age: 10 years, Occu. Education,
(Being minor u/g of his mother i.e.
Respondent No.1)
3. Bhiwaji s/o Khanoji Kamble
Age: 54 years, Occu. Labour,
4. Kantabai W/o Bhiwaji Kamble
Age: 49 years, Occu. Labour,
All R/o. Pardi, Tq. Kalamnuri,
Dist. Hingoli
5. Anil S/o Bhimrao Dhone
Age: 44 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Isapur 9Dam), Tq. Pusad,
Dist. Yewatmal ... Respondents
(Respdt. Nos. 1 to 5 - Org. Claimants
Respdt. No.5 - Org. Respdt.No.1)
1 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 09:13:34 :::
(( 2 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
....
Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. Manjit S. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.5
....
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1616 OF 2020
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
Through its Branch Manager,
Branch Office, Nagpur, Dist. Nagpur
Through its Authorized Signatory/Branch Manager,
ABC Complex, MIDC Chikalthana,
Near Prozone Mall, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad - 431 001 ... Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No.2)
VERSUS
1. Kailas S/o Narayan Aawate
Age: 40 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o. Killewadgaon, Tq. Kalamnur,
Dist. Hingoli
2. Anil S/o Bhimrao Dhone
Age: 44 Years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Isapur (Dam), Tq. Pusad,
Dist. Yewatmal ... Respondents
(Respdt. No.1 - Org. Claimant
Respdt. No.2 - Org. Respdt. No.1)
....
Mr. S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. Manjit S. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No. 1
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2
....
2 of 10
::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2021 09:13:34 :::
(( 3 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
RESERVED ON : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd DECEMBER, 2021
J U D G M E N T :-
. Both these appeals are being decided by this common
judgment, since these appeals arise out of the judgment and award
passed in Motor Accident Claim Petitions arising out of one and the
same accident. Both the appeals have been preferred by the
Insurance Company of trolley, allegedly involved in the accident.
. First Appeal No. 1608 of 2020 is arising out of the
judgment and award dated 18.01.2020, passed by the Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.43 of 2011, granting compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/-
(Rupees Nine Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred Only) on
account of death, while the award under challenge in First Appeal
No. 1616 of 2020 has been passed by the very Member, in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 88 of 2011, granting compensation of
Rs.61,700/- (Rupees Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred Only) on
account of injuries and disability suffered.
3 of 10
(( 4 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
3. For the sake of convenience, the evidence in M.A.C.P.
No.43 of 2011 is referred to.
4. Facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:-
Deceased Rahul, along with his brother-in-law Kailas,
was on his way from Chinchordi to Killewadgaon on motorbike
bearing registration No. MH-38/K-6173. He was riding the same. His
brother-in-law Kailas was the pillion rider. When the motorbike was
passing along Pardi to Chinchordi road by 7.30 p.m., a tractor
bearing registration No. MH-29/R-8973 with trolley attached thereto
(MH-29/R-8928), came from opposite side. The tractor dashed
against the motorbike. Both, Rahul and Kailas fell off and suffered
multiple injuries. Rahul died on the next day. His father, therefore,
lodged the report of the accident. His legal representatives and the
injured Kailas, filed two separate claim petitions for compensation.
The Tribunal allowed both the petitions as stated above.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant - Insurance
Company would submit that the accident took place on 05.03.2011.
The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged four days thereafter.
4 of 10
(( 5 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
The father of the deceased gave a statement that an unknown
vehicle dashed against the motorbike. According to the learned
Advocate, it is a case of false implication of the tractor. He would
further submit that although the tractor and trolley were owned by
respondent No.5 (Anil Bhimrao Dhone), the tractor did not have
insurance cover when it met with the accident. The learned Advocate
invited this Court's attention to the definition of tractor and trolley
given in Motor Vehicles Act. According to him, trolley is not
self-propelled vehicle. It needs to be towed by any other vehicle. It
was a head on collision between motorbike and the tractor. The
trolley was in no way involved in the accident. The award, therefore,
ought to have been passed against the owner of the tractor.
According to the learned Advocate, unless the tractor was insured,
the insurer of the trolley has no liability to pay. He would further
submit that the driver of the tractor was not party to the claim
petition. Since it was a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, negligence on the part of the tractor driver ought to
have been a matter, directly and substantially in issue. The driver
thereof, therefore, should have been a party to the claim petition.
According to the learned Advocate, notice under Rule 260 of the
5 of 10
(( 6 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Act to the owner, driver and insurer of
the tractor was a must. There is failure to comply with the said rule.
The tractor driver was also said to have no valid and effective driving
licence to drive the same at the relevant time. The learned
Advocate, ultimately, urged for setting aside the impugned awards.
6. Learned Advocate for the respondents - claimants
would, on the other hand, support the impugned awards.
7. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the
evidence relied on. Gone through the impugned awards and
authorities relied on.
Deceased Rahul, along with his brother-in-law Kailas,
was on his way to their village Killewadgaon on the motorbike. It
was 05.03.2011. By 7.30 p.m., they were passing along Pardi
Chinchordi road. The tractor attached with the trolley was said to
have knocked down the duo. Both, Rahul and Kailas suffered
multiple injuries. They were rushed to the hospitals. Rahul, however,
succumbed to the injuries on 06.03.2011. True, his father lodged
the report of the accident on 09.03.2011, wherein he stated that one
unknown vehicle hit the motorbike. The Tribunal, on appreciating
6 of 10
(( 7 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
the evidence, has rightly observed that the father of the deceased
was not in a mental frame on account of grief of demise of his son.
Moreover, he (father) had not witnessed the accident. It was,
therefore, but reasonable for him not to make mention of the tractor.
The owner of the tractor did not file his written statement. On due
investigation, the tractor driver was proceeded against by filing
charge-sheet. Moreover, it does appear that involvement of the
tractor has not been seriously disputed before the Tribunal. Close
reading of the affidavit of evidence filed by the official of the
appellant - Insurance Company, vouch for the same. The affidavit of
evidence contained no denial of the involvement of the tractor with
trolley attached thereto.
8. The claimant in another claim, was an eye witness to the
accident, being a victim thereof. On appreciating the evidence in the
case, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion as to
involvement of the tractor with the attached trolley. This Court sees
no reason to interfere therewith.
9. Sections 2(44) and 2(46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, read
thus:-
7 of 10
(( 8 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
"2(44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself
constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used
for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller;
2(46) "trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-
trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a
motor vehicle."
10. Admittedly, both, tractor and trailer are required to be
registered independently. The trailer itself is not a self-propelled
vehicle. When it is being towed by the tractor, it becomes part of the
same as one vehicle, namely tractor. The learned Advocate for the
appellant - Insurance Company, therefore, could not be heard to say
that it was head on collision between the motorbike and the tractor
head, and as such the trailer was no way involved in the accident.
11. Admittedly, both, the tractor and trailer were owned by
respondent No.5 herein. The tractor had no insurance cover at the
relevant time. The trolley had. Close reading of the written
statement filed by the appellant - Insurance Company and even the
appeal memos would undoubtedly suggest it to have failed to take
defence of it being a case of breach of terms and conditions of policy
of insurance, particularly the term that the insurer of the tractor
shall have liability only in case the tractor has an insurance cover.
8 of 10
(( 9 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
12. So far as the issue of non impleadment of the driver of
the tractor and want of compliance of Rule 260 of the Maharashtra
Motor Vehicle Rules is concerned, it is to be stated that there was no
whisper in the written statement as regards failure to comply with
Rule 260. Moreover, in the appeal memo, no challenge to the
impugned award has been made on both these grounds. The points
raised for the first time in the oral submissions sans permission of
this Court, are therefore not addressed to. There is also nothing to
suggest that prejudice has been caused to the appellant - Insurance
Company due to non compliance of Rule 260. On the question of
validity of the driving licence of the driver of the tractor, it is to be
stated that the issue is no longer res-integra in view of the Apex
Court judgment in the case of Mukund Dewagan vs Oriental
Insurance Company Limited - (2017) 14 SCC 663. This issue,
therefore, was not seriously raised before this Court.
13. All in all, there is no reason for this Court to interfere
with the impugned awards.
14. In the result, the appeals fail. The same are dismissed.
9 of 10
(( 10 )) FA-1608, 1616-2020-Jt.
15. The amount of compensation in deposit, be paid to the
respective claimants with interest accrued thereon, immediately.
16. Civil Applications No.7605 of 2021 and 7578 of 2021
are disposed of.
[ R. G. AVACHAT, J. ]
SMS
10 of 10
