Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh & Anr. vs Santosh Devi & Ors on 31 July, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31st July, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 554/2012
RAJINDER SINGH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Represented by: Mr. Y.P. Singh and
Mr. Sandeep, Advs.
versus
SANTOSH DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Rajat Brar, Adv. for R4.
Mr. H.S. Sachdeva and Mr. H.N. Jagdishwar,
Advs. for R5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the present appeal, appellants have assailed the award dated
24.02.2012, whereby, Ld. Tribunal while awarding the compensation of
Rs.8,95,750/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition till realization has granted recovery rights against the
appellants.
2. Mr. Y.P. Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
submits that Ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted the recovery right against
the appellants on the averments that the offending vehicle, i.e., the
Tractor was having a Trailer, which was of commercial in nature at the
time of accident.
3. Mr. Singh, Ld. Counsel has drawn the attention of this court to
Para 24 of the impugned award, wherein Ld. Tribunal has relied upon a
case of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., JT
2001 (6) SC 482 and observed that mere attachment of Tractor with
Trailer does not convert Tractor to transport vehicle. Further, in the later
judgment in the case of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. v. State of
Karnataka and Ors. AIR2005SC3428 the Apex Court has observed that
Trailer is a separate and distinct vehicle, different from a Tractor and
falls under Section 2 as a goods carriage and consequently falls under the
definition of transport vehicle under Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajat Brar, Ld. Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent / Insurance Company submits that owner of the
offending vehicle had paid premium only for the insurance of the Tractor
and not for the Trolley and the licence of the driver of the offending
vehicle was valid for 20 years and was not valid to drive the transport
vehicle.
5. I heard ld. Counsels for the parties.
6. Admittedly, appellant no. 2, driver of the offending vehicle was
having driving licence for LMV and the Tractor. However, the Ld.
Tribunal has opined that the driver was not having valid driving licence
for driving the Tractor-Trailer. Accordingly, the recovery rights were
granted against the appellants.
7. I note, Sh. Amit Wadhwa, Assistant Manager appeared as R3W1
and deposed that Tractor was attached with Trolley and as per the
driving licence verification report, the driver was having driving licence
for LMV and for the Tractor and was not authorized to drive the
transport vehicle. However, he did not depose that the driver was not
authorized to drive Tractor, which is not a commercial vehicle.
8. As per FIR No. 626/2010, while committing the accident the
offending vehicle, i.e., the tractor was having Trolley attached, not the
Trailer.
9. The issue on Tractor with Trolly attached came before this Court
in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Tyagi and Ors.,
MAC. A. 889/2010 delivered on 31.03.2014, wherein this court held as
under:
"6. The appellant has taken a ground in their written
statement filed before the Ld. Tribunal that appellant is
not liable to pay any compensation as Trolley was
attached with the Tractor for which no premium was paid
and therefore, it was the violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy.
7. The case of the respondents / claimants before the
Ld. Tribunal was that when witness from the insurance
company appeared in the court and was cross-examined,
he deposed that the Tractor was insured for the purpose of
the agriculture, however, in his reply with regard to the
meaning of agricultural purpose or regarding the fact that
as to whether agricultural purpose includes the
attachment of Trolley as crops are taken to the Mandi in
Trolley and other accessories are also attached with the
Tractor so as to fulfil the agricultural purpose, this
witness showed total ignorance towards all such facts.
8. IMT48, terms used in the policy prescribed as
under:
"AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY
VEHICLES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
VEHICLES WITH TRAILERS ATTACHED-
EXTENDED COVER
"It is hereby declared and agreed that in
consideration of an additional premium of
Rs.........., the indemnity provided by this policy
shall apply in respect of any trailer (including
Agricultural Implements such as Ploughs,
Harrows and the like) described in the under
noted Schedule as trailers as though it were a
vehicle described in the Schedule and had set
against it in the Schedule the value set against it
in the under noted Schedule of trailers.
Provided that the insurer shall be under no
liability under Section 1 of the policy in respect
of breakage of any part of the agricultural trailer
or implements caused by ground obstructions."
IMT-56 prescribed as under:
"TRAILERS (Road Transit Only)
In consideration of the payment of an additional
premium it is hereby understood and agreed that
insurance by Section I and II of this policy shall
extend to the Motor Vehicles (mechanically
propelled or otherwise) attached to the Motor
Vehicle for the purpose of being towed
Provided always that
a) The insurer shall not be liable under this
policy in respect of damage to property conveyed
by the towed vehicle.
b) The insurer shall not be liable under this
policy in respect of accident loss damage and /
or liability caused sustained or incurred whilst
the vehicle insured is towing a greater number of
vehicles than is permitted by law."
9. On perusal of the above terms, it is revealed that the
case of the appellant does not fall in any of the provisions
mentioned above. Moreover, the insurance policy was a
comprehensive policy for agricultural purpose.
10. The Tractor without equipment like Trolley etc. is of
no use and it can be useful for the agricultural purpose, if
other equipments are attached with it.
11. The word agricultural purpose denotes wide
amplitude. It is not only the tractor simpliciter insured,
rather it is insured for agricultural purposes.
Undisputedly, the insurance policy covers the tractor for
agricultural purposes. Therefore, mere attachment of a
trolley with a Tractor does not tantamount to violation of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
10. This court in the case of Sanjay Tyagi (Supra) opined that Tractor
is not a commercial vehicle. It is for the agricultural purposes only. The
LMV / Tractor licence is required to drive the Tractor and when Trolley
and other agricultural equipment is attached with it, that also becomes a
part of the Tractor, eventually, that equipment cannot be considered
separately. Consequently, the Tractor cannot be said as a commercial
vehicle.
11. In view of the facts recorded above, I am of the considered
opinion that Ld. Tribunal has wrongly granted recovery rights against the
appellants.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
13. Consequently, award dated 24.02.2014 is set aside qua the
recovery rights against the appellants.
SURESH KAIT, J
JULY 31, 2014
jg
