Bombay High Court

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Div ... vs Maruti Baban Pawar And Ors on 1 July, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:16635


                                                  {1}           FA 2141 OF 2020


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2141 OF 2020
                                               WITH
                                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3743 OF 2025
                                           IN FA/2141/2020
                 New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
                 Through it's Branch Manager,
                 3rd Party Claims Hub, 3rd Floor,
                 Rushiraj Regency, Near Vidya Vikas Circle,
                 Gangapur Road, Nashik - 422 005.

                 Thr. Its Divisional Manager/Authorized Signatory,
                 Mahesh Auto Compound,
                 Adalat Road, Aurangabad,
                 Dist.Aurangabad.                                  ....Appellant
                                                      (Original Respondent No.3)
                               Versus
                 1)    Maruti Baban Pawar
                       Age: 47 years, Occu.: Labour,
                 2)    Suman Maruti Pawar
                       Age: 42 years, Occu.: Household,
                       Both R/o. Punatgaon, Tq.Newasa,
                       Dist.Ahmednagar.
                 3)    Sunil Dnyaneshwar Pawar
                       AgE: Major, Occu.: Business,
                       R/o. : Punatgaon, Tq.Newasa,
                       Dist.Ahmednagar.
                 4)   Arun Raghunath Tagad
                      Age: Major, Occu.: Driver,
                      R/o. Punatgaon, Tq.Newasa,
                      Dist.Ahmednagar.                      .....Respondents
                                          (Rspdt. Nos.1 & 2 - Org. Claimants
                                          Rspdt Nos.3 & 4 - Org.Rspdt.Nos.1 & 2)
                                                .....
                 Advocate for Appellant Insurance Company : Mr. M.M. Ambhore
                 Advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 2 - claimants: Mr.Amol S. Gandhi
                                                .....
                                   {2}              FA 2141 OF 2020


                     CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                    RESERVED ON   : 16 JUNE, 2025
                    PRONOUNCED ON : 01 JULY, 2025

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeal is at the instance of Insurance Company under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, taking exception to judgment

and award dated 09-10-2019 passed by learned Member, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Shrirampur in M.A.C.P. No.158 of

2018 thereby, partly allowing the claim of present respondent nos.1

and 2 on account of death of deceased Sachin Pawar after his limb

got amputated while conducting activity of harvesting maize crop on

thresher machine.

The learned Tribunal fixed joint and sever liability of

respondent nos.1 to 3 therein i.e. owner, driver of Tractor and their

insurer company i.e. respondent no.3. Exception by way of appeal is

taken by only Insurance Company.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

2. Apprising this Court about brief facts of the claim petition, it is

pointed out that on 10-05-2018, deceased Sachin and his father were

performing agricultural activity of threshing the maize crop. He {3} FA 2141 OF 2020

pointed out that the machinery, which was put to use for threshing is

a distinct part and it does not fall in the definition of Motor Vehicle.

Unfortunately deceased Sachin allegedly met with an accident while

running machinery causing an imputation to left limb and while

treatment, he allegedly succumbed to the same. That, parents of

deceased set up a false claim before the MACT, Shrirampur

demanding compensation.

Learned counsel pointed out that after issuance of notice and

after tendering written statement, appellant Insurance Company

refuted their liability to pay any compensation. Learned counsel for

appellant took this Court through specific stand taken by them in

written statement exh.23 that, firstly, Tractor in question had no

concern with the accident, secondly, accident did not involve motor

vehicle so as to maintain any claim under the Motor Vehicle

Accidents Claim. Learned counsel further pointed out that stand

taken in written statement was that the threshing machine, due to

which amputation was suffered by deceased, was not insured and

therefore, there is no question of granting any compensation. He

further submitted that there is no independent eye witness about so

called accident met by deceased Sachin.

He submitted that learned Tribunal has not assigned sound and {4} FA 2141 OF 2020

legally acceptable reasons while accepting the claim asserted. He

also pointed out that by virtue of specific ground, very

maintainability of accident claim petition was questioned. He also

pointed out that though incident took place on 10-05-2018, there

was no prompt lodgment of complaint apart from spot panchanama

being drawn after 10 days. For all above reasons, learned counsel for

appellant questions the impugned judgment and award passed by the

learned Tribunal.

Learned counsel for appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Meena

Variyal and Others, (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 428 and

Judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnaji @ Kisanji Ramaji

Tadas v. Umesh Rambhau Shrirame, 2015 (6), Mh.L.J. 334.

On behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 - original claimants :

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2

/ original claimants supported judgment of learned Tribunal, its

finding and submitted that, there is no denial that threshing machine

was part and parcel of Tractor. That, the very Tractor and its

accessories are insured with appellant Insurance company. He

pointed out that claimant no.1 father is party to the occurrence. He {5} FA 2141 OF 2020

has deposed before the Court and his evidence has remained

unshaken.

Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 invited attention

of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v.

Santosh and Ors., 2013 AIR (SC) 2150 and Judgment of this Court in

case of Krishnaji @ Kisanji Ramaji Tadas v. Umesh Rambhau

Shrirame, 2015 (6), Mh.L.J. 334, and urges dismissal of appeal for

want of merits.

ANALYSIS

4. After hearing the submissions of both the sides, it appears that

fundamental grounds of challenge in the appeal are that firstly,

deceased Sachin having met with an accident while conducting

agricultural activity that too by use of threshing machine and it being

distinct part of the Tractor, accident claim petition itself is not

maintainable, secondly there was no sufficient evidence to draw

conclusion about death of Sachin to be on account of use of any

accessories or machinery and thirdly, delayed FIR as well as delayed

spot panchanama.

{6} FA 2141 OF 2020

5. Appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and also gone

through the impugned judgment passed by the learned MACT. There

is no dispute about engagement of Tractor owned by respondent no.3

herein and its driver to be respondent no.4 herein. These two

respondent parties have not challenged the claim on any count. On

the contrary, they have admitted engagement of Tractor for operating

threshing machine to harvest maize crop and there is no denial that

threshing machine was attached to Tractor.

Sum and substance of argument made before this Court by the

appellant is that threshing machine is not a part of motor vehicle i.e.

Tractor to seek compensation.

Reliance was placed before the learned Tribunal on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnaji @ Kisanji Ramaji

Tadas (supra). In the above judgment, by virtue of Section 2(28)

alongwith Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been held

that thresher, which runs on power, though is an external accessory, it

is a part and parcel of the Tractor and thus, it falls in the definition of

motor vehicle. Facts in the case in hand are also identical. In the

light of this citation, there is no hesitation to hold that thresher, being

a part and parcel of Tractor and being conjointly put to use while

harvesting activity being conducted, it falls in the definition of motor {7} FA 2141 OF 2020

vehicle. Therefore, findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be said

to be either perverse.

6. The another ground pressed into service by the appellant is

that there is no eye witness. However, respondent no.1 / claimant

no.1, who was also accompanying deceased at the time of harvesting

is examined.

Deceased Sachin having suffered imputation was required to

be shifted to Pune and treated and therefore, the delay in reporting is

not of much significance.

Therefore, grounds raised in appeal have no substance and

merit so as to disturb the findings of the learned Tribunal.

Accordingly, following order is passed :

ORDER

(i) First Appeal No.2141 of 2020 is dismissed.

(ii) In view of dismissal of appeal itself, Civil Application No.3743 of 2025 filed by original claimants for withdrawal of amount is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A".