Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Muni Mahesh Prajapati on 13 December, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 13 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 4994 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. THROUGH DEPUTY
MANAGER T.P. HUB JABALPUR NAISABIAZADPUR
DELHI PRESENTLY BRANCH OFFICE PILI KOTHI ROAD
REWA DISTRICT REWA THROUGH R/O T.P. HUB
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI NARINDERPAL SINGH RUPRAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MUNI MAHESH PRAJAPATI S/O DEMAN
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE VILLAGE LAUR
KALA POLICE STATION LAUR TAHSIL MAUGANJ
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. RAMKALI W/O LATE MUNI MAHESH
PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE TAHSIL LAUR KALA POLICE STATION
LAUR TAHSIL MAUGANJ DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MUKESH JAISWAL S/O RAMADHAR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VEHICLE
DRIVER RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SALAIYA POLICE
STATION HANUMANA DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. JOGENDAR SINGH S/O SOHAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VEHICLE
DRIVER R/O JOGENDAR SINGH AND COMPANY
54-A BLOCK A SALIMAR DELHI (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KOUSHALENDRA
SHARAN SHUKLA
Signing time: 15-12-2023
19:30:03
2
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of the
award dated 30.07.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Mauganj, district - Rewa in MACC No.04/2019 on the ground
that the policy Exhibit D-1 is a policy under Contractor's Plant & Machinery
Insurance. It is a policy which covers the risk of machinery being damaged or
being stolen, and does not cover third party risk.
However, when learned counsel for the insurance company is requested
to read from the policy Exhibit D-1 that it only covers the risk of machine
against damage or being stolen etc. and not cover third party risk, then he
submits that no such clause is mentioned in policy Exhibit D-1 as complete set
of policy was not produced before the Court.
When this aspect is taken into consideration, then it is evident that the
Claims Tribunal has rightly considered the decision of Delhi High Court in
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jagat and Others, decided on
28.07.2017 where Delhi High Court has held as under:
"7. Admittedly the crane in question was a
mechanically propelled vehicle and was not of any
special type adapted for use only in a factor or in any
other enclosed premises within the meaning of exceptions
provided in Section 2 (28) of MV Act, The Ld counsel for
the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment titled
Poomani v. Tooticorin Thermal Power Project (AIR
1990 Madras 372) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has
held that a mechanically propelled crane is motor vehicle.
In view of the above discussions, I do not find any force
in the contention of the Ld counsel for the insurance
copany that the crane involved in the accident was not a
motor vehicle hence the said contention of the learned
counsel for the Insurance company is hereby rejected."
Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and
Others v. Smt. Santosh and others, 2013 SCC Online SC 466 wherein it is
held that whatever is suitable of being modified and used on road is a motor
vehicle in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it is held as
under:
"As to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as motor
vehicle in terms of Section 2 (28) of the Act, is to be
determined on the facts of each case taking into
consideration the use of the vehicle and its suitability for
being used upon the road. Once it is found to be suitable for
being used on the road, it is immaterial whether it runs on the
public road or private road, for the reason, that actual user
for a particular purpose, is no criteria to decide the name.
Definition of motor vehicle takes within its ambit, a dumper
and tractor. Tractor which is used basically for agricultural
purpose and a dumper is used in the factory premises, can
suitable (sic) be adapted for being used on the road,
therefore, they will meet the requirement of definition of
motor vehicle under Section 2 (28) of the Act. The word
"only" used in Section 2 (28) of the Act clearly shows that
the exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles
which are exclusively being used in a factory or in any
closed premises. Thus, a vehicle which is not adapted for
use upon the road, is only to be excluded."
Thus, in view of the said discussion and appreciation of evidence made
by learned Tribunal, impugned award cannot be faulted with.
As the appellant has not discharged its burden to point out from the
specific clause of the policy that the policy was only covering the risk of
damage and being stolen, and no other risk, the insurance company has
admittedly failed to discharge its burden and, therefore, it cannot take any
advantage of its own lapse.
The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ks
