Madhya Pradesh High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurance ... vs Smt. Parvati on 3 August, 2023
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 3 rd OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 107 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MANAGER MAGMA HOUSE, 24 PARK STREET OFFICE
3RD FLOOR PLOT NO. 93, SCHEME NO. 47, ABOVE
STATE BANK OF INDIA, NEAR TANISHQ SHOWROOM,
SAPNA SANGEETA ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY MR. NIRENDRA SINGH TOMAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SMT. PARVATI W/O LATE SARDAR SINGH
DHAKAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE JHANDEL PS BADARWAS,
PARGANA KOLARAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KU. POONAM D/O LT SARDAR SINGH DHAKAD,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, VILL JHANDEL PS
BADARWAS PARGANA KOLARS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. KU. BHARATI D/O LT SARDAR SINGH DHAKAD,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR
UG SMT. PARVATI VILL JHANDEL PS BADARWAS
PARGANA KOLARS (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEEPAK S/O LT SARDAR SINGH DHAKAD, AGED
ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR UG SMT.
PARVATI VILL JHANDEL PS BADARWAS
PARGANA KOLARS (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. RAMJIOLAL S/O BHAGWANLAL, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, VILL JHANDEL PS BADARWAS PARGANA
KOLARS (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT. AJJUDIBAI W/O RAMJILAL, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS, VILL JHANDEL PS BADARWAS PARGANA
KOLARS (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
4:35:24 PM
2
7. MANOJ DHAKAD S/O HARICHARAN DHAKAD,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, VILL JHANDEL PS
BADARWAS PARGANA KOLARS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
8. RAMVEER SINGH DHAKAD M/O GANGARAM
VILL JHANDEL PS BADARWAS PARGANA KOLARS
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MR. VINOD KUMAR DHAKAD - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO
6 - CLAIMANTS)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Present miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the award dated
24.9.2019 passed by Seventh Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Shivpuri (M.P.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 64/2019.
The facts in brief to decide these appeals are that respondents No. 1 to 6
- claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act
before learned claims tribunal for grant of compensation due to death of
deceased Sardar Singh in an accident occurred on 21.9.2018 involving tractor
bearing Registration No. MP33-AB-5969.
Respondents No. 7 and 8 - Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle
respectively filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the
claim petition and further stated that since the tractor was insured with the
appellant - insurance company, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation.
Appellant - insurance company filed its written statement and denied the
averments made in the claim petition and further stated that at the time of
accident, the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the policy terms
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
4:35:24 PM
and conditions, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the
compensation.
Learned claims tribunal after hearing both the parties and considering the
evidence adduced by them allowed the claim petition of the claimants and
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.12,79,600/-, which was directed to be
paid by respondents No. 7 and 8 as well as insurance company jointly and
severely.
Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that learned claims
tribunal has erred in allowing the claim petition of the claimants because in this
case, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor is not
proved. From oral as well as documentary evidence on record, it has been
proved that the deceased himself was putting the crop in the thresher / cutter
and negligently overloaded the same due to which he met with the accident. It is
further argued that since it has not been proved that there was any negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending tractor in causing the accident, therefore,
claim petition ought to have been dismissed. Hence, prayed to set aside the
impugned award.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants argued that learned
claims tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned award and
prayed for rejection of present appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available
record.
The claimants examined Gopal (AW-2) as an eye-witness. According to
this witness, at the time of accident, deceased Sardar Singh was putting the dry
crops into the thresher. Thresher was connected with the offending tractor. He
further stated that when Sardar Singh was putting dry crops into the thresher, he
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
4:35:24 PM
asked tractor driver Manoj to stop the thresher, however, Manoj did not stop
the same on account of which deceased received serious injuries by the running
thresher.
Statement of above eye-witness remained unchallenged in his cross-
examination. Nothing emerged in his cross-examination to disbelieve his
statement. Therefore, learned claims tribunal has not erred in holding that the
accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the
offending tractor.
Insurance company has examined DW-1 Edwin Guardia to prove its
defence. This witness has stated that tractor No. MP33-AB-5969 was insured
with the company from 27.6.2018 to 26.6.2019 for agricultural purposes. He
has further stated that as per insurance policy Ex.D-1, thresher was not insured
with the insurance company neither any premium was paid for the thresher,
therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. However,
above contention is not acceptable because the tractor as well as thresher was
being used for agricultural purposes. Thresher being energized by a tractor and
being operated through the tractor is to be considered a motor vehicle as power
of propulsion to the thresher is transmitted from an external source i.e. tractor,
therefore, in the light of case law of Chairman, Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Santosh & Ors.; (2013) 7 SCC 94,
United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sardarilal & Ors.; AIR 2005
HP 9 and Kishor vs. Shahid Shah & Ors.; 2011 MP 972 , learned claims
tribunal has rightly held that insurance company failed to prove any breach in
the policy.
The evidence adduced by the claimants also reveals that the accident was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
4:35:24 PM
not due to contributory negligence of deceased Sardar Singh as he was putting
crop in the thresher and also asked the driver of the tractor to stop it, however,
driver of the tractor did not stop the same due to which this accident occurred.
In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the impugned award passed by learned claims tribunal is in accordance with
law and no interference is warranted in the same.
The appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 07-Aug-23
4:35:24 PM
