Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Kishan vs Nathiya Bai on 28 April, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 648 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
RAM KISHAN S/O JAMEEL SINGH RAGHUVANSHI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER
1.
VILL.CHHAPER, STATION NAI SARAI,
DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
MANAGER, PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CORPORATION
2. SOCIETY OCCUPATION: VILL-KALABAG, TEH-
ISAGARH, DIST-ASHOK NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY MR. G.S. SHARMA AND MR. V. K. JHA - ADVOCATES)
AND
NATHIYA BAI S/O LATE POORAN HARIJAN, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE, R/O
1. VILL.BHAURA, (KALABAG), TEH.ISAGARH,
DISTT.ASHOKNAGAR AT PRESENT MUKAM
GULABGANJ, CANTT. GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
NARESH S/O LT.POORAN CHANDRA HARIJAN, AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
2.
VILL-BHAURAM(KALABAG), TEH-ISAGARH, DIST-
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
HALKE S/O LT. POORAN CHANDRA HARIJAN , AGED
ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
3.
VILL-BHAURAM(KALABAG), TEH-ISAGARH, DIST-
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
GAJENDRA S/O LT. POORAN CHANDRA HARIJAN ,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
4.
AGRICULTURIST VILL-BHAURAM(KALABAG), TEH-
ISAGARH, DIST-ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. BRAJESH S/O LT. POORAN CHANDRA HARIJAN , AGED
ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-May-23
10:05:20 AM
2
VILL-BHAURAM(KALABAG), TEH-ISAGARH, DIST-
ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAMLA S/O BALLA HARIJAN , AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING VILL-
6.
BHAURAM(KALABAG), TEH-ISAGARH, DIST-
ASHOKNAGAR, (MADHYA PRADESH)
NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
OCCUPATION: BRANCH OFFICE,HAUJI
7.
SANNUMARKET, A.B ROAD, SHIVPURE,(M.P)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. RAJIV JAIN - ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1
TO 6 - CLAIMANTS AND MR. ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL -
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 7 - INSURANCE
COMPANY)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Present miscellaneous appeal has been filed assailing the award
dated 12.04.2012 passed by Second Additional Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Guna in Claim Case No. 79/2011.
2. The facts in brief to decide the appeal are that a claim petition was
filed by respondents No. 1 to 6 - claimants for grant of compensation on
account of death of deceased Pooran on 22.9.2011 involving tractor
bearing registration No. MP08 AB 3005.
3. Appellants No. 1 and 2 - Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle
did not file any written statement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-May-23
10:05:20 AM
4. Respondent No. 7 - Insurance Company filed its written statement
and denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for
dismissal of the claim petition.
5. Learned claims tribunal framed issues and after hearing both the
parties on merits and recording their evidence partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/-, which was
directed to be paid by the appellants jointly and severely.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that learned claims
tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from liability to
pay the compensation. It is further argued that learned claims tribunal has
awarded the compensation amount on the higher side. Deceased was
engaged as a worker to the appellant No. 2 - Society and, therefore, he was
covered from the insurance policy. Hence, respondent No. 7 - insurance
company is liable to pay the compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned award and prayed for rejection of the appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available
record.
9. The appellants have not challenged the fact of the accident and death
of the deceased Pooran on account of the accident involving tractor bearing
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-May-23
10:05:20 AM
registration No. MP08 AB 3005 due to rash and negligent driving of
appellant No. 1 - Ram Kishan.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the offending tractor
was owned by appellant No. 2 - Society and since the deceased was the
employee of the Society at the time of accident and was sitting on the
tractor in the capacity of a employee, therefore, insurance company is
liable to pay the compensation. However, the above argument is not
sustainable because the policy of offending tractor Ex.D-5 reveals that the
risk of only tractor driver and owner was covered under the insurance
policy. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was driver
or owner of the tractor. It is not in dispute that offending tractor was in the
ownership of appellant No. 2 - Society.
11. Certificate of registration of offending vehicle Ex.D-1 also reveals
that the sitting capacity of offending vehicle was for two persons and as
per sales certificate Ex.D-4 (c), the sitting capacity is only for one person.
N.A.W. No. 2 Dinesh Kakariya, Assistant Grade 3, R.T.O. Office, Guna
has specifically stated in his evidence that as per sales certificate, the
sitting capacity in the offending vehicle is only for one person and i.e. for
the driver. The evidence on record shows that at the time of accident, along
with the driver, three other passengers were travelling in the offending
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-May-23
10:05:20 AM
vehicle, therefore, learned claims tribunal has rightly held that at the time
of accident, the offending tractor was being plied in breach of policy terms
and conditions. Since the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle
as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, learned claims tribunal has not erred in
exonerating the insurance company from payment of compensation in the
light of case law of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chhaniya &
Ors.; 2010 ACJ 1020 and Rajabai vs. New India Insurance Company;
2008 ACJ 2017 M.P.
12. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, on the basis of
evidence adduced by the claimants, learned claims tribunal has rightly
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/-.
13. In view of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the
impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, present miscellaneous appeal sans merit and is hereby
dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 03-May-23
10:05:20 AM
