Delhi High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Smt Geeta & Ors on 22 February, 2016
Author: R. K. Gauba
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 269/2012 & CM APPL. 4754/2012
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Ms Neerja Sachdeva with Ms Pooja
Tandon, Advs.
versus
SMT GEETA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. B.S. Solanki, Adv. for R-1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT
R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):
1. The appeal at hand has been presented by the Insurance Company
(third respondent before the Tribunal) challenging the interim award passed
on 13.12.2011 allowing the prayer of the claimants (first to fourth
respondents herein) under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V.
Act) directing compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- being paid on the
principle of no fault liability on account of death of Ajit Singh as a result of
motor vehicular accident that occurred on 13.12.2006, involving Tractor
bearing no.HR-10H-7894 (the offending vehicle) which concededly was
insured against third party risk with the appellant Insurance Company for the
period in question.
2. The Insurance Company (appellant), upon being noticed by the
Tribunal on the main claim petition presented under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, filed written statement on 27.08.2010 raising the
preliminary objection that it had issued farmer's package policy wherein the
offending vehicle should have been used for agricultural purposes only. It
contended that the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes and
therefore, it could not be called upon to indemnify. It is the contention of the
claimants that the deceased was driving as a labourer engaged by the owner
of the offending vehicle and was on way to the agricultural fields when the
accident occurred and the tractor fell into a drain resulting in the death of the
driver, the claimants cannot be denied the benefit of the insurance cover.
The appellant relies upon Yallwwa (Smt.) and Others v. National Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Another (2007) 6 SCC 657.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds
that the issue cannot be resolved at the stage of preliminary award as it
would need to be put to inquiry on the main petition based on fault -liability
clause wherein the Insurance Company will be liable to prove the grounds
on which it seeks to be absolved of the duty to indemnify.
4. The appeal is found unmerited and liable to be dismissed.
5. The Insurance Company had deposited the amount as per interim
award with up to date interest in terms of order dated 16.02.2012. The said
amount shall be released by the Registrar General to the claimants in terms
of interim award passed by the Tribunal. Should the Insurance Company
succeed before the Tribunal on the main petition and is absolved of its
liability to indemnify, it shall be granted recovery right against the owner of
the offending vehicle.
6. Statuary amount, if deposited, shall be released.
7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2016/afa
