United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Chhataki And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 8673 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35732]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1063/2001

United India Insurance Company Limited Near Rotary Club, Residency Road, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Chhataki widow of Sh. Laxman by caste Meghwal resident of Village Dadal, District Jalore

2. Sh. Rava Ram S/o Sh. Laxman Meghwal, resident of village Dadal, District Jalore

3. Sh. Mahadev Ram S/o Laxman, resident of village Dadal, District Jalore

4. Padma Ram S/o Sh. Laxman

5. Netha Ram S/o Sh. Laxman

6. Jhini D/o Sh. Laxman

7. Luka Ram S/o Sh. Laxman [respondent no.4 yo 7 are minor through legal guardian Mother Smt. Chhataki widow of Sh. Laxman Meghawla, resident of village Dalal, District Jalore.

Claimants

8. Ram Singh S/o Sh. Bhanwar Singh, resident of village Dala, District Jalore.

9. Bhanwar Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh, resident of village Dadal, District Jalore

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Dadhich For Respondent(s) : None present

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/2023

The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by

the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

against the judgment and award dated 24.08.2001 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalore (hereinafter

[2023:RJ-JD:35732] (2 of 3) [CMA-1063/2001]

referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 160/1998

whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and

awarded Rs. 99,000/- as compensation to be recovered from the

appellant-Insurance Company.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company

submits that the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is

erroneous. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to

appreciate the evidence in its entirety. It is submitted that the

tractor was insured for 'agricultural use only' and at the relevant

point of time, it was not being used for the said purpose. It is

further submitted that the owner of the tractor has not paid any

extra premium for the passengers. As per the policy, only the risk

of driver was covered and at the time of accident, three persons

were travelling in the tractor including the deceased-Laxman.

Thus, there has been a violation of policy conditions and learned

Tribunal while fastening the liability of 50% on the appellant-

Insurance Company has failed to appreciate this vital aspect of the

matter. Lastly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment and award

may be modified and the appellant-Insurance Company may be

exonerated from its liability. In support of his contentions, learned

counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered

in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v.

Chinnamma and Ors. passed in Appeal (civil) 5478/2004,

decided on 25.08.2004.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

material available on record.

4. On a perusal of the Insurance Policy (Ex. A1), it is clear that

the policy was for 'Agricultural Use Only'. In the pleadings of the

[2023:RJ-JD:35732] (3 of 3) [CMA-1063/2001]

claimants, it is stated that on the date of accident, the vehicle was

being used for photography purpose. Further, from the perusal of

policy it is clear that the premium was taken only for one person

ie driver of the vehicle. No premium was taken by the Insurance

Company for the passengers. It is an admitted position that the

deceased was travelling on the tractor. Thus, there has been a

violation of policy conditions as the vehicle was not being used for

agricultural purpose and it carried passengers. The learned

Tribunal has erred in holding that the Appellant-Insurance

Company is liable.

5. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. It is held that

the Appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability

and the owner and driver are held liable for compensating the

claimants. It is further directed that the Appellant-Insurance

Company shall be at liberty to recover any amount, if already paid

by it to the claimants by way of appropriate proceedings.

6. Stay application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

7. No order as to costs.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 8-CPG/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)