Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhimrao Gopinath Hamne And Ors on 27 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:32594
-1- FA-1341-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2012
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Jalna - Through Divisional Officer,
Branch Office - Chhatrapati Sankul,
1st Floor, Subhash Road, Beed.
Through its authorised signatory -
Divisional Manager At Aurangabad ... Appellant
(Orig. Resp. No.3)
Versus
1. Bhimrao s/o. Gopinath Hamne,
Age : 45 years, Occu. : Agriculture/Business,
R/o. Zipri, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
Now R/o. Talwada,Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed. ... Orig.Claimant
2. Pratap S/o. Meharban Rathod,
Age : Major, Occu. : Business,
R/o. Son Pimpalgaon Tanda,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.
3. Bholaram S/o. Pratap Rathod,
Age : 24 years, Occu. : Driver,
R/o. Son Pimpalgaon Tanda,
Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna. ... Respondents.
......
Mr. V. R. Mundada, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Y. K. Bobade, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. A. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 25 NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 27 NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal at the instance of insurance company/original
-2- FA-1341-2012
respondent no.3, there is challenge to the judgment and order dated
21.12.2011 passed by learned M.A.C.T, Beed in M.A.C.P. No. 89 of 2009
filed by present respondent no.1.
2. In nutshell, facts giving rise to the accident claim petition are
that, on 29.03.2008, respondent no.1- original claimant Bhimrao alighted
from State Transport Bus and was proceeding towards Zirpi Phata. At
that time, he was given dash by tractor bearing no. MH-27-D-673 coming
from opposite direction, as a result of which, claimant fell down and later
on trolley attached to the tractor passed over his leg, crushing the same.
His leg was required to be operated, and therefore, he set up claim
petition by invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking
compensation under various heads.
3. Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed written statement at Exh.20
and denied dash and injury. Respondent no.3 present appellant insurance
company vide Exh.22 strongly resisted the claim denying negligence on
the part of tractor driver. Insurance company set up a claim that injured
himself was negligent. Specific defence was also taken that only tractor
was insured and not the trolley, and therefore, insurance company is not
liable to pay any compensation.
After appreciating the respective cases advanced by each of
-3- FA-1341-2012
the side, learned tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim awarding
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,90,502/- with interest at the rate of
12% per annum.
Feeling aggrieved by the above, insurance company has
come up in appeal.
4. Learned counsel for insurance company Shri Mundada apart
from placing written notes of arguments, would point out that, claim was
set up under various heads to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. That, in fact,
original respondent driver had denied his fault or negligence. That,
claimant had failed to prove that there was sole negligence of the tractor
driver. He would further point out that, though they are the insurer,
insurance was only restricted to the tractor and not the trolley which was
actually alleged to be involved in causing injury to the leg. Learned
counsel emphatically submitted that, no distinct premium was paid
towards the trolley attached to the tractor. In support of his contention,
he submits that, under such circumstances, liability ought not to have
been fastened on insurance company and he seeks reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Devangan v.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [AIR 2017 SC 3668].
5. He further emphasized that respondent no.2 driver was
-4- FA-1341-2012
armed with driving licence of tractor only and not permitted to carry
transport goods. He also seeks reliance on the judgments of this Court in
the cases of The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Mangala Shantaram Shewale and Others in First Appeal No. 116 of 2011
as well as in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushila w/o.
Niwarti Bande and others in First Appeal No.250 of 1996.
For above reasons, learned counsel urges to set aside the
impugned judgment and order passed by tribunal and prays to allow the
appeal.
6. Above submissions are countered by learned counsel for
respondent/original claimant by canvassing in favour of the judgment
and order passed by tribunal. It is pointed out that, dash was given by
tractor and same being insured, insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation and learned tribunal has rightly done so. He seeks reliance
on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Nagashetty v.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 3356; Fahim Ahmad and
Ors. v. United Indian Insurance Company, AIR 2014 SC 2187.
7. The short question needs to be addressed is whether
insurance company is liable to pay compensation in the light of
involvement of tractor having trolley attached to it. Specific ground
-5- FA-1341-2012
raised in appeal is that both, tractor as well as trolley are distinct,
insurance was only for tractor and not trolley. Learned counsel for
appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this court referred
above. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant, who justified the
grant of compensation, has also relied on above two cases, which are
apparently of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. For ready reference, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Nagashetty (Supra), are borrowed and reproduced
herein :-
"10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C.
Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and
effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under
Section 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of
motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a
trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used
for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes
ineffective. In the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be
accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has
a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof
carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods
thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport
vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence
to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely
because ea trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor
vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle
-6- FA-1341-2012
a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a
tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving
licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he continues to
have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle
even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried
in it. In other words a person having a valid driven licence to
drive a particular category of vehicle does not become
disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is
added to that vehicle."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fahim Ahmad
(Supra) has observed as under :
"A perusal of the records shows that, at the time of the
accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was
carrying sand for the purpose of construction of
underground tank near the farm land for irrigation
purpose(s). However, merely because it was carrying sand
would not mean that the tractor was being used for
commercial purpose and consequently, there was a breach of
the condition of policy on the part of the insured. There is
nothing on record to show that the tractor was being used
for commercial purpose(s) or purpose(s) other than
agricultural purpose(s), i.e., for hire or reward, as
contemplated under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the said Act."
9. Before the tribunal, claimant had adduced his own evidence
at Exh.33 and has placed on record copy of FIR as well as spot
panchanama Exhs.34 and 36 along with driving licence and insurance
-7- FA-1341-2012
policy. From the evidence of injured complainant, it is emerging that, he
was given dash by the tractor and when he fell, later on the tyre of the
trolley no.1 ran over his leg. Admittedly, trolley was attached to the
tractor. Therefore, here, it is demonstrated that, dash in fact was given by
the tractor which was driven by respondent no.2. Though the wheel of
trolley attached to the tractor ran over the leg, both were in fact part and
parcel of one vehicle.
10. In view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Nagashetty and Fahim Ahmad (supra), reproduced above, trolley
is also required to be considered as a part of the tractor and though no
distinct premium is paid or levied for the trolley, in the considered
opinion of this court, insurance company is still liable to compensate the
same and as such no fault can be found in the findings recorded by
learned tribunal that insurance along with other respondents is liable to
pay compensation.
11. For above reasons, there being no merits in the first appeal, I
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
First Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
-8- FA-1341-2012
12. After pronouncement of judgment, the learned counsel for
respondent no.1 original claimant submits that he may be permitted to
withdraw remaining amount.
13. In view of above submissions, respondent no.1 original
claimant is permitted to withdraw remaining amount subject to
furnishing usual undertaking, if any.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
