Br.Manager,Cholamandalam vs Nandlal Dhakad
2021 Latest Caselaw 360 MP

                          -( 1 )-            MA No. 606/2013
Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company
              Ltd. vs. Nandlal Dhakad and others




             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   BENCH AT GWALIOR

                               (Single Bench)

                  MISC. APPEAL NO. 606 OF 2013

Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S.
General Insurance Company Ltd.     ..... APPELLANT
                           Versus

Nandlal Dhakad and Others                       .....RESPONDENTS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM

           Hon. Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance

      Shri N.S.Tomar, Advocate for the appellant-insurance
company.
      Shri S.K.Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.1.
      Shri Dheeraj Budholiya, learned counsel for the respondents
No.2 to 6-claimants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for Reporting :                     No

Reserved on            :      24/02/2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             JUDGMENT

(Passed on 1st March, 2021)

This Misc. Appeal under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, assailing the Award dated 12.03.2013 passed by Second

-( 2 )- MA No. 606/2013 Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nandlal Dhakad and others

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in Claim Case No. 137/2011, whereby, a total compensation of Rs. 6,73,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Baisram Dhakad.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that deceased Baisram was doing the business of running flour mill and had been working on the thrasher machine on the date of incident. While he was working on the machine, it is alleged that the driver/owner of tractor bearing registration No. MP 33A-5343 rashly and negligently started the tractor, as a result of which the deceased was dragged in the thrasher machine and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The matter was reported to the concerning Police Station and a case under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. Therefore, the claimants, who are the parents, wife and children of the deceased filed a claim case, in which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- payable jointly and severely by the Insurance Company, owner/driver.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company argued that the impugned award is against the settled principle of law and also contrary to the facts and material on record. The Tribunal did not properly appreciate provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The conclusion drawn with regard to death of deceased by thrasher while using tractor is erroneous. As thrasher machine was not insured with the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. As only tractor was insured, therefore the Tribunal has erred in passing the

-( 3 )- MA No. 606/2013 Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nandlal Dhakad and others

award against the appellant-insurance company. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal with costs and setting aside the impugned award dated 12.3.2013. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments in Ashok Verma vs. Shivnath Singh Sikarwar [2007 (1) D.M.P. 279 (MP)]; Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Ramalingegowda and another [2012 ACJ 1595]; Kaushnuma Begum and others vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and others [2001 ACJ 428] ; and, Savitha vs. Cholamandlam Insurance Co.Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2611/2020, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.6.2020].

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions and placed reliance on the judgments in Kalim Khan vs. Fimidabee [2018 ACJ 2025]; Kishore Gayre vs. Shahid Shah and another [(2011) 2 MPLJ 201]; and, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brijesh Jatav and Others [Misc. Appeal No. 275/2014 decided by this Court on 20.1.2020].

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.

6. In Kalim Khan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the word 'use of vehicle' used under Motor Vehicles Act and using any thrasher affixed to the vehicle, will be treated as use of the vehicle (tractor).

7. In the light of above, it is held that since the thrasher was attached with the tractor and was functional with the help of tractor and the tractor was insured with the insurance company, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the insurance company is

-( 4 )- MA No. 606/2013 Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nandlal Dhakad and others

hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.

9. In the facts of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

                                                                   (Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava)
(yog)                                                                       Judge.



                                YOGESH VERMA
                                2021.03.02
             VALSALA
             VASUDEVAN
             2018.10.26
             15:14:29 -07'00'
                                12:18:36 +05'30'