Vishan Singh vs Daulat Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6441 MP

                                      01

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                 AT GWALIOR
                                  BEFORE
               HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
                        ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2022
                    MISC. APPEAL No. 315 of 2013


     Between:-
     VISHAN SINGH S/O MEHARWAN
     SINGH , AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION:         KRISHI     GRAM
     SANOTI P.S. DEEPNAKHEDA, TEH.
     SIRONJ,      VIDISHA         (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
                                                     .....APPELLANT
     (BY SHRI, G.S. TIWARI, ADVOCATE )


     AND
1.   DAULAT       SINGH     S/O    MULLU
     SINGH , AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
     OCCUPATION:          KHETI     GRAM
     SANOTI      P.S.    DEEPNAKHEDA,
     TEH. SIRONJ DISTT. VIDISHA
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.   VIKAS @ VILKHU SINGH S/O
     DOULAT SINGH, AGED ABOUT 17
     YEARS,OCCUPATION:MINOR,U/
     G FATHER DOULAT SINGH, S/O
     MULLU       SINGH      R/O     GRAM
     SANOTI,THANA DEEPNAKHEDA,
     TEH. SIRONJ, VIDISHA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
3.   REENU S/O DOULAT SINGH ,
     AGED        ABOUT      13     YEARS,
     OCCUPATION:MINOR,                U/G
     FATHER       DOULAT         SINGH,S/O
     MULLU       SINGH      R/O     GRAM
                                               02

     SANOTI,THANA DEEPNAKHEDA,
     TEH. SIRONJ, VIDISHA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
4.   IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
     COMPANY          LTD.      MUMBAI          TH:
     MANAGER            VIDISHA          BRANCH
     OFFICE          VIDISHA            (MADHYA
     PRADESH)
                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY      SHRI       R.P.      GUPTA,          ADVOCATE           FOR
     RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 )
     (BY     SHRI      B.K.     AGRAWAL,           ADVOCATE           FOR
     RESPONDENT NO.4)
     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
        following:


                                   JUDGMENT

This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 has been filed against the award dated 07/12/2012 passed by

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar, (M.P.) in Claim Case

No.31/2011 by which Claims Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and

awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,64,000/- in favour of the

claimants.

The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short

are that on the date of incident i.e. 27/04/2011, respondent/claimant

No.1 alongwith his wife Munni Bai and granddaughter- Khushbu

went to mandi to sell the crop of masoor in the tractor bearing

registration No. MP-40-AA-4225 owned by the appellant/owner -

Bisan Singh and at about 8:00 p.m, when they were coming back to

home in the said tractor-trolley, after crossing the Bhadona, the

appellant/driver who drove the tractor in a very rash and negligent

manner due to which tractor was overturned and deceased Munni Bai

died on the spot.

The respondent/claimant No.1 to 3 filed the claim petition

before the Claims Tribunal. Learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim

petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- in favour of claimants.

Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No.4/non-applicant No.2-

Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation as

there was breach of policy. Learned claims tribunal directed the

appellant/non-applicant No.1 to pay the compensation against which

this appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned

order is contrary to law and contrary to the oral and documentary

evidence adduced in the case.

The appellant/respondent No.1 i.e. owner of the vehicle

submitted its reply before the Tribunal and denied the contents of the

claim petition and pleaded that claim petition is filed on false

footings and also denied that no accident was caused with its tractor

and at the time of the accident, the driver was having valid driving

licence.

The respondent No.4/non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company

filed its reply and denied the contents of the claim petition and took

the defense that the offending vehicle was insured with it for

agricultural purposes and the premium was paid only for driver,

however, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being

driven for the purpose of business, therefore, Insurance Company is

not liable to pay compensation.

The Insurance Company examined (DW-1) Manoj Bhatt to

prove its defense, the witness corroborated the policy of the offending

vehicle vide Exh. D/5.

On perusal of Exh. D/5, it is clear that the tractor was insured

for agricultural purposes.

The defense taken by respondent No.4/Insurance Company is

that Bisan Singh used his tractor and trolley against the terms of

policy for the purpose of carriage of goods by another person for his

business activities.

The oral evidence of the witness (PW-1) Daulat Singh, reveals

that at the time of accident, he alongwith the deceased was sitting on

the trolley. At para-14, he categorically stated that he had taken the

tractor and trolley on rent from Bisan Singh and the incident occurred

while coming back from Ashoknagar after selling the crop of masoor.

(PW-2) Prakash Singh has also corroborated the above facts.

The appellant/owner at para-7 of his cross examination himself

admitted that he got the tractor insured for agricultural purposes not

for carrying passengers. He had not paid any premium for carrying

the passengers.

In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Babulal

and other [2012 ACJ 2054], National Insurance Company

Company Ltd. [2014 (1) TAC 870 (M.P.)] and National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma, [2004 ACJ 1909 (SC)], the

Apex Court held that the use of tractor for agricultural purposes

would not be considered to mean that tractor-trolley can be used for

carriage of goods by another person for its business activities and held

that the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes.

In view of above, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held

that at the time of accident, the offending tractor bearing registration

No.MP-40-AA-4225 was being driven against the terms of the

Insurance Policy.

Consequently, impugned award passed by claims tribunal is

found to be in accordance with law and does not call for interference.

In the light of above discussion, the appeal filed by the

appellant/owner stands dismissed.

The respondents No.1 to 3/claimants have also filed the cross-

objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for enhancement of

compensation for which court fees is required to be paid as that on the

memo of appeal under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. However,

the claimants have not paid the court fees on cross objection,

therefore, on account of failure to follow mandatory provisions of law

the Cross-objection is not found to be maintainable; hence, dismissed.

(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2022.05.04 15:33:06 +05'30' VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00'