Madhya Pradesh High Court
Oriental Insurance Comp.Ltd. vs Krishna Deo Singh @ Pappu Singh & ... on 12 December, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 12 th OF DECEMBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 480 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH
OFFICE, REWA, MAHARAJA HOTEL, CIVIL LINE,
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ROHIT JAIN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KRISHNA DEO SINGH @ PAPPU SINGH, SON OF
VASHUDEO SINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE DOURHARA, POLICE STATION RAMPUR
NAIKEN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH S/O KRISHNA DEO
SINGH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, MINOR THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER KRISHNA DEO S/O
VASHUDEO SINGH, VILLAGE DOURHARA, POLICE
STATION RAMPUR NAIKEN, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KULDEEP SINGH S/O KRISHNA DEO SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 5 YEARS, MINOR THROUGH NATURAL
GUARDIAN FATHER KRISHNA DEO S/O
VASHUDEO SINGH, VILLAGE DOURHARA, POLICE
STATION RAMPUR NAIKEN, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. EKTA MINOR D/O KRISHNA DEO SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, MINOR THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER KRISHNA DEO S/O
VASHUDEO SINGH, VILLAGE DOURHARA, POLICE
STATION RAMPUR NAIKEN, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
SAN
5. VASHUDEO SINGH S/O SHIV PRASAD SINGH,
Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE
Date: 2022.12.15 15:16:50 IST
RAMPURNAIKEN, DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA
2
PRADESH)
6. DEVENDRA SINGH S/O SARDAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER, BIDHA
POLICE STATION SEMARIYA, DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SAXENA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 4)
(NONE FOR THE OTHER RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming for final hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award
dated 29.11.2003 passed by 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi in
Claim Case No.69 of 2002 on the ground that the deceased Pramila was
traveling on tractor to purchase some fertilizers. Sitting capacity of the tractor is
one person and i.e. driver. No passenger is allowed to sit on a tractor.
Insurance Company has not undertaken any insurance for a passenger on the
tractor. Therefore, the insurance company should have been exonerated from
its liability and award should have been passed against the owner-driver of the
tractor.
Shri Pavan Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the
company has already deposited the compensation amount, the matter is old and
therefore, the claimants be allowed to withdraw the compensation amount and
insurance company be directed to recover it from the owner -driver of the
tractor.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the ratio of
Signature Not Verified
SAN
law laid down by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.733 of 2000 decided
Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR
on 23.06.2022, placing reliance on the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court
JYOTISHI
Date: 2022.12.15 15:16:50 IST
in New India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Asha Rani and Others, AIR 2003
SC 607, if passenger is not allowed on the tractor, insurance company could
not have been fastened with the liability to pay compensation.
However, looking to the typical facts and circumstances of the case, it is
directed that if any amount is withdrawn by the claimants then that much of
amount will be recoverable by the insurance company from the owner- driver of
the tractor and for rest of the amount deposited by the issuance company, they
would be free to withdraw it and the claimants can claim the same from the
owner - driver of the tractor.
With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is disposed of. Record of the
tribunal be sent back.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
rj
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Date: 2022.12.15 15:16:50 IST
