Delhi High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Nahar Singh & Ors on 13 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. 368/2010
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Adv.
versus
NAHAR SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary,
Adv. for R2 and R3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award
dated 08.04.2010 whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for a
sum of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing
of the petition till realization of the amount.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the
offending vehicle was insured under "Farmers Package Policy", but the
same was being put to commercial use without any valid permit.
3. Ld. Counsel further submits that the driver of the offending vehicle
was under the influence of the alcohol at the time of accident. Therefore, the
appellant is not under the contractual obligation to pay the compensation as
the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy. Moreover, a criminal case was registered against the
driver of the offending vehicle and a chargesheet under Section 185 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed apart from the other provisions of Indian
Penal Code was also filed.
4. In order to substantiate the contention that the Tractor was under the
"Farmers Package Policy" Sh. Dilip Kaul, R3W1 appeared in the witness
box and in the cross-examination he admitted that the offending vehicle was
an agricultural Tractor and a permit is required for commercial vehicle.
However, the said witness failed to produce any rules or regulations
requiring the necessity of a permit for a tractor to put on an agricultural use.
5. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Insurance
Company can take certain defences prescribed therein in order to come out
of its contractual obligation. As per settled law, if such defence is raised by
the Insurance Company, the onus to prove the same rest upon the said
Company itself.
6. It is an admitted fact that a chargesheet Ex.PW1/C was filed under
Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. However, vide order dated
05.08.2009 Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 279 of the Motor Vehicles Act only.
Thus, there was no conviction for the offences punishable under Section 185
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
7. In the present case, a Tractor is an offending vehicle, which is meant
for agricultural purposes and it is supposed to be brought on road for the
purpose of repair work as well as for getting the necessary fuel for its
running and taking the agriculture yield to the market.
8. At the time of accident, the Tractor was carrying fertilizers in the
trolly. This fact has not been controverted by the appellant.
9. It is not disputed that the Tractor is used for the agricultural purposes
and no permit is required to bring the same on road. Pertinently, the
appellant could not establish that the tractor was plying for commercial use.
10. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal. Same
is accordingly dismissed.
11. The statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant and the
balance compensation amount, if any, be released in favour of the
respondent / claimant on taking steps by him.
SURESH KAIT, J
MARCH 13, 2014
Jg/RS
