Madhya Pradesh High Court
Cholamandalam Ms ... vs Mus. Angeera Mati on 11 October, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 11th OF OCTOBER, 2022
MISC. APPEAL No. 3091 of 2016
BETWEEN:-
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS.CO.LTD. [As
per Award] THR. MANAGER LEGAL
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GEN.INS.CO.LTD.
ABOVE CALCUTTA AUTOMOBILES 1ST FLOOR
BEHIND GULZAR HOTEL NARSINGH WARD
NAGPUR ROAD, JABALPUR M.P.
.....APPELLANT
(NONE )
AND
1. MUS. ANGEERA MATI W/O LATTE SHRI
CHHOTELAL SAKET, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
VILL. OKHRAWAL P.S. MARA DISTT.
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SURAJ KUMAR S/O LATE CHHOTELAL, AGED
ABOUT 8 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH THEIR MOTHER MUS ANGEERA
MATI VILL. OKHRAWAL P.S. MARA DISTT.
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SEEMA D/O LATE CHHOTELAL, AGED ABOUT 6
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: MINOR THROUGH
THEIR MOTHER MUS ANGEERA MATI VILL.
OKHRAWAL P.S. MARA DISTT. SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SURENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE CHHOTELAL,
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
THROUGH THEIR MOTHER MUS ANGEERA
MATI VILL. OKHRAWAL P.S. MARA DISTT.
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TULSANWA W/O SHOBHNATH SAKET, AGED
Signature Not Verified
SAN ABOUT 63 YEARS, VILL. OKHRAWAL P.S. MARA
DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2022.10.14 19:24:20 IST
6. BHAGWANDAS S/O SHEETAL PRASAD VAISHYA,
2
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILL. OKHRAWAL P.S.
MARA DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SHEETAL PRASAD S/O MUNNILAL VAISHYA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILL. OKHRAWAL P.S.
MARA DISTT. SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award
dated 02.09.2016 passed in Claim Case No.101/2014 by learned Additional
Member of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Singrauli.
Sole ground which has been raised in this appeal in the hands of the
Insurance Company is that Tribunal has accepted a fact that deceased Chhotelal
Saket was travelling on the tractor which was used for transportation of 'Gitti'
whereas Tractor was insured for agriculture and forestry purposes.
It has also come on record that Chhotelal Saket was sitting on the tractor.
It has also come on record that Insurance Company had taken premium only
for the driver of the offending vehicle and not for anybody else. Insurance
Policy is Ex.D-1 and is available on record.
In para 13 of the evidence of Shobhnath Saket, there is an admission that
his son Chhotelal Saket was sitting on the tractor and Bhagwandas had taken
him for the purposes of loading and unloading 'Gitti'. Similarly, Rampyare
Saket, AW-2 also admitted that his son-in-law Chhotelal Saket was taken by
Bhagwandas on his tractor for loading and unloading of the 'Gitti'.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Thus, it is evident that claimant was travelling in the tractor which is not
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2022.10.14 19:24:20 IST
meant for sitting of a passenger as sitting capacity of a tractor is only one
person. This Court in case of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Smt. Sukaratiya Bai and Others in M.A. No.1999/2021 decide on
28.06.2022 has held after placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, (2003) 2
SCC 223, that when there is fundamental breach of the Policy then the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation and accordingly
exonerated the Insurance Company with a direction to the owner/driver of the
tractor to satisfy the award.
Same ratio of law will be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case and accordingly, impugned award is modified to the extent that
amount of compensation will be payable by the owner/driver of the tractor i.e.
respondents No.6 and 7 jointly and severally.
In above terms, this appeal is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Tabish
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN
Date: 2022.10.14 19:24:20 IST
