Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Subhash
2025 Latest Caselaw 5500 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd vs Subhash on 12 March, 2025

Author: Vivek Agarwal

Bench: Vivek Agarwal

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12944




                                                              1                                MA-1264-2014
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2025
                                                 MISC. APPEAL No. 1264 of 2014
                                      SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                                                       Versus
                                                SUBHASH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain - Advocate for the appellant.
                                  Ms. Krishna Singh Chandel - Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

                                                                  ORDER

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of award dated 6/02/2014 passed in Claim Case No. 112/13 whereby learned counsel for the Insurance Company in para 3 of the award after recording a finding that deceased Subhash was travelling on a tractor, yet compensation has been awarded.

It is submitted that there is no liability for a passenger on a tractor and a tractor is having only seating capacity of one person. Therefore, in the

light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another (2008) 10 SCC 432, the compensation should not have been allowed in favour of the claimants and if compensation should have been allowed, it is against the owner and driver of the tractor and not against the Insurance Company.

Ms. Krishna Singh Chandel, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:12944

2 MA-1264-2014 3 in her turn submits that as per the policy for the offending vehicle bearing registration no. MP-28-E-3081, seating capacity including the driver is shown as 1+1 and then premium under IMP 29 towards one employee has been charged at Rs. 25/-.

Thus, it is evident that the Insurance Company after charging premium for one employee by showing the seating capacity of one person on a tractor cannot riggled out of its liability by saying that tractor has no seating capacity. Therefore, once the policy itself shows that the Insurance Company has mentioned seating capacity of the tractor as 1+1 and has charged the premium, then judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj (supra) will not be applicable.

Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

Record of the Tribunal be sent back.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE

vy