[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jirinder Etc. vs Munni Devi Etc. on 30 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
FAO-767-2004
2004 (O&M)
JITINDER AND ANOTHER
. . . . Appellants
Appellant
Vs.
Munni Devi and others
. . . . Respondents
Respondent
****
Reserved on: 28.04.2026
.04.2026
Pronounced on: 30.
30.04.2026
Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK
AK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Sarita Devi, Advocate, for
Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate,
for respondent No.7-The
No.7 The Oriental Inst. Co. Ltd.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle assailing the award dated 05.11.2003 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, whereby the Insurance Company has
been directed to satisfy the award in the first instance with liberty to recover
the same from the appellants.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 07.02.2002, Nafe Singh (since
deceased) was travelling in a trolley
trolley loaded with sugarcane, which was attached
to a tractor bearing registration No. HR-06D
HR 06D-1505,, being driven by appellant
Jitinder.
nder. The tractor was proceeding from Muzaffarnagar towards Iqbalpur
Sugar Mill. Near the bridge of Gang Canal, the tractor was fo
found
und to be carrying
two trolleys, both heavily loaded with sugarcane, and was being driven in a
FAO-767-2004
rash and negligent manner. Owing to the excessive load and imbalance, the
tractor overturned into the canal. The deceased, who was sitting atop the
sugarcane in the trolley, got trapped beneath it and died at the spot. An FIR
was registered against the driver. The widow and five children of the deceased
thereafter instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded
a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending tractor by appellant Jitender. Compensation to the
tune of ₹1,51,200/- was awarded. Although the vehicle was found to be
insured, the Tribunal held that there was a breach of the terms and conditions
of the policy inasmuch as two overloaded trolleys had been attached to the
tractor. Consequently, while directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the
award in the first instance, recovery rights were granted against the driver and
owner.
4. Assailing the said finding, learned counsel for the appellants has
contended that the tractor was insured under a 'Kisan Package Policy' and that
the policy covered agricultural use, including trailers. Reliance has been placed
upon Rule 2(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to argue that the
expression "trailers" used therein permits attachment of more than one trailer,
and therefore, no breach of policy can be said to have occurred. It is thus
contended that the Insurance Company has been wrongly granted recovery
rights.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
supported the findings of the Tribunal and submitted that the vehicle was
being used in a manner wholly inconsistent with the terms of the policy and
basic safety norms, thereby constituting a clear breach.
6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and examined the
material on record.
FAO-767-2004
7. It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, two trolleys
loaded with sugarcane were attached to the tractor and that the same were
overloaded. It is also evident that the deceased was made to sit on top of the
loaded trolley, thereby exposing him to obvious risk.
8. The terms 'agricultural tractor' and 'agricultural trailer' are defined
in Rule 2 (b) & (c) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as under: -
"agricultural tractor" means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle
designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/ or
trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-
transport vehicle.
"agricultural trailer" means a trailer generally left uncovered with
single/double axle construction which is coupled to an Agricultural Tractor by
means of two hooks and predominantly used for transporting agricultural
materials.
9. The argument raised on behalf of the appellants based on the use
of the plural expression "trailers" in Rule 2(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules cannot be accepted in a literal or mechanical manner. The statutory
definition is required to be interpreted in a purposive and practical context. An
agricultural tractor is designed to operate with implements or a trailer for
agricultural purposes; however, such usage must remain within the bounds of
safety and the contractual terms of the insurance policy. The mere use of the
plural form does not imply an unrestricted right to attach multiple trailers
irrespective of safety considerations or policy limitations.
10. Attachment of two trolleys, that too heavily overloaded, materially
alters the dynamics of the vehicle, including its balance, braking capacity and
maneuverability. Such use clearly enhances the risk beyond what is ordinarily
contemplated under an insurance contract covering an agricultural tractor. The
facts of the present case demonstrate that the accident itself was a direct
consequence of such improper and unsafe use.
FAO-767-2004
11. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that
the act of attaching two overloaded trolleys constituted a fundamental breach
of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has rightly drawn such
conclusion.
12. It is a settled principle of law that even in cases where there is a
breach of policy conditions, the insurer is under a statutory obligation to satisfy
the award qua third party and is thereafter entitled to recover the amount
from the insured. The Tribunal has correctly applied this principle by directing
the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in the first instance with
liberty to recover the same from the appellants.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no illegality,
infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The
reasoning is sound and in consonance with the settled legal position.
14. Consequently, the present appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
JUDGE
30.04.2026
Vivek
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
Uploaded on: 30.04.2026
