Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhanwar Lal (2025:Rj-Jd:20842) on 1 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:20842]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2088/2018
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Manager, Branch Office, Near Alok
Cinema, Churu Through Its Authorised Signatory At Sun Tower,
3Rd And 4Th Floor, Pal Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer Of Tractor No. Rj-
10-Ra-3386)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mani Ram @ Munni Lal S/o Lt. Mala Ram, Aged About 71
Years, By Caste - Bhargav, R/o Dakoton Ka Baas,
Bidasar, Police Station - Chhapar, Tehsil - Sujangarh.
2. Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Mani Ram @ Munni Lal, Aged
About 65 Years, By Caste - Bhargav, R/o Dakoton Ka
Baas, Bidasar, Police Station - Chhapar, Tehsil -
Sujangarh.
3. Sukha Ram S/o Gordhan Ram, Aged About 47 Years, By
Caste - Jat, R/o Magra Baas, Ladnoon, Police Station-
Landoon, Dist. - Nagaru. ( Driver Of Tractor No Rj-10-
Ra-3386)
4. Smt. Parma Devi W/o Chandra Ram, By Caste - Jat, R/o
Dunkar, Tehsil - Sujangarh, Distt - Nagaur. (Owner Of
Tractor No. Rj-10-Ra-3386)
5. Smt. Jyoti W/o Lt. Pukhraj, Aged About 24 Years, D/o
Bajrang Lal, By Caste - Bhargav, R/o Near Tehsil Office,
Data Ramgarh, Dist. Sikar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2134/2018
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Near Alok Cinema
Churu, Through Its Authorised Signatory At Sun Tower, 3Rd And
4Th Floor, Pal Road, Jodhpur. (Insurer Of Tractor No. Rj-10-Ra-
3386)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, Aged About 51 Years, B/
c Bhargav, R/o Khudi, Tehsil - Sujangarh, Dist. Churu.
2. Smt. Manju Devi W/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 49
Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Khudi, Tehsil - Sujangarh, Dist.
Churu.
3. Sukha Ram S/o Gordhan Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Magra Baas,
Ladnoon, Police Station Landoon, Dist. Nagaru. (Driver
Of Tractor No. Rj-10-Ra-3386)
4. Smt. Parma Devi W/o Chandra Ram, B/c Jat, R/o
Dunkar, Tehsil - Sujangarh, Dist. Nagaur. (Owner Of
Tractor No. Rj-10-Ra-3386)
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 09:48:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (2 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Santosh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
01/05/2025
1. The Insurance Company has preferred the above titled two
appeals seeking quashing of a common judgment and award
dated 10.04.2018 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sujangarh, District Churu, whereby, in Claim Case No.
33/2013 and Claim Case No. 34/2013, compensation of
Rs.8,70,000/- and Rs. 9,20,000/-, respectively was awarded to
the claimants therein. Vide this common order and judgment, both
the appeals are being disposed of.
2. Brief facts first. On 06.04.2013, the deceased Pukhraj and
Vikam were traveling from Sujangarh to Salasar on a motorcycle
bearing registration number RJ-44-SA-0306. The motorcycle was
being driven by the deceased Pukhraj. At around 10:00 p.m.,
when they reached near Bhivsar Pyau on the Sujangarh-Salasar
road, a tractor bearing registration number RJ-10-RA-3386 came
from the opposite direction (from Salasar side). The tractor was
being driven by Respondent No.1, Sukharam, allegedly at a very
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor
suddenly came to the wrong side and hit the motorcycle. As a
result, Pukhraj died on the spot, and Vikam died later during
treatment at Kalyan Hospital, Sikar.
2.1 At the time of the accident, deceased Pukhraj and Vikam
were 21 and 23 years old, respectively. Both were working as
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (3 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
mechanics at M/s Mamta Motors, Bidasar, and as per claimants
were earning a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- each.
Compensation amounts of Rs. 88,95,000/- for Pukhraj and Rs.
85,35,000/- for Vikam were sought by their legal representatives.
3. The tractor was/is registered in the name of Respondent No.2
- Smt. Parmadevi, and insured with Respondent No.3 - the
insurance company.
4. Learned Tribunal framed five issues, English translation of
the same is as below:-
"(i) Whether the accident occurred on 06.04.2013 at
approximately 10:30 PM near Bhiwesar Piau on the Sujangarh-
Salasar road in Kasba Sujangarh due to the first respondent-
Sukharam(driver), driving tractor No. RJ-10 RA-3386 at a high
speed, negligently and carelessly, thereby colliding with the
motorcycle of the deceased Chainaram, resulting in the death of
Vikram and Pukhraj who were riding on the said motorcycle?
(onus-applicants/claimants)
(ii) Whether the said vehicle was being driven by the first
respondent (driver) under the employment, control, and direction of
the second respondent (Owner), for their benefit and interest, at the
time of the accident?
(onus-applicants/claimants)
(iii) Whether the objections raised by the non-applicants in their
reply are acceptable? if yes, then are the non-applicants not liable
to pay compensation?
(onus-respondents/Non-claimants)
(iv) Whether the applicant-claimants-Bhanwarlal & another are
entitled to receive ₹88,95,000/- and the applicants-Maniram &
another ₹85,35,000/- as compensation, along with interest, jointly
and severally from the non-applicants, and if so, from whom and to
what extent?
(onus-applicants/claimants)
(V) Relief."
5. Based on the respective evidence adduced by the parties,
the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the
claimants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the vehicle
involved in the accident was a tractor attached with a trolley,
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (4 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
being used on a public road. Such use qualifies it as a goods-
carrying commercial vehicle. Therefore, the driver must possess a
driving licence of the "Transport Vehicle" category. He submits that
the learned tribunal committed an error in holding the appellant-
insurer liable under issue no. 4, disregarding the fact that the
driver did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive a
transport vehicle as required under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
appellant is thus protected from liability under Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) of the Act, and the award should be set aside against the
insurer.
6.1. He further submits that the appellant specifically pleaded
that there was no liability to indemnify the insured, since the
driver held a licence only for a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), valid for
20 years, whereas a transport licence requires special
endorsement and is valid only for three years. This defense was
substantiated through cogent evidence, including the testimony of
NAW-1 Rajesh Kumar Mishra, the insurance policy (Ex. NA-1), and
driving licence verification (Ex. NA-2), which confirmed that the
driver held an LMV licence only.
6.2. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act sets out specific conditions
for obtaining a transport licence, including minimum age and prior
holding of an LMV licence. As the driver did not meet these
qualifications, the tribunal's findings are perverse and
unsustainable in law and must be set aside.
6.3. He contends that the insured tractor was covered under a
"Farmer's Package Policy" for agricultural use only. Its use with a
trolley for commercial purposes on a public road violated the
insurance contract. This was pleaded and supported by oral and
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (5 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
documentary evidence, yet the tribunal failed to consider it,
necessitating reversal of the impugned award.
6.4. He would also contend that, even otherwise, the accident
occurred in the middle of a 20-ft-wide road as shown in Exhibits 3
and 4, indicating possible contributory negligence of the
motorcyclist. Furthermore, the deceased motorcyclist was not
wearing a helmet, a fact confirmed by the postmortem report,
which showed head injuries as the cause of death. This violation
supports the case for contributory negligence, which the tribunal
failed to consider.
6.5. The Motor Transport Officer's (MTO) report indicated both
vehicles were at high speeds, yet the tribunal did not apply
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur which would have resulted in shared
liability.
6.6. He also argues that the tribunal erroneously assessed the
monthly income of the deceased as ₹5,000/-, whereas minimum
wages in 2013 were ₹3,822/-. As the income of the deceased was
not proven, only minimum wages should have been considered.
7. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondents.
8. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the case file,
I shall now proceed to deal with the merits and demerits thereof
and render my opinion based on the discussion and reasoning
contained hereafter.
9. First and foremost, perusal of the impugned the award.
Would reveal that Bhanwarlal (A.W.1) and Maniram (A.W.2),
reiterated case facts and submitted documents (Exhibits 1-10,
including FIR, charge sheet, site map, MTO report, postmortem
reports, and Pukhraj's income certificate). Amarchand (A.W.3), an
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (6 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
eyewitness, testified that the tractor, driven rashly, veered to the
wrong side, hitting the motorcycle. Despite cross-examination, no
discrepancies discredited Amarchand's account. The FIR (Exhibit-
1), lodged promptly at 8:15 AM on 07.04.2013, confirmed the
accident's occurrence. The site map (Exhibit-3) and condition
(Exhibit-4) showed the collision occurred on the motorcycle's
correct side, indicating the tractor's fault. The MTO report (Exhibit-
5) identified the tractor as a red Massey 1035. Postmortem
reports confirmed deaths due to accident injuries. Parmadevi
admitted ownership (Exhibit-7), and Sukharam's valid LMV license
(Exhibit-8) and the tractor's insurance (Exhibit-10) were proven.
The claimants thus proved Sukharam's negligent driving caused
the fatal collision. Issues 1 and 2 were decided in favor of the
claimants.
9.1. Relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.:
(2017) 14 SCC 663, the tribunal held that a tractor-trolley is a
light motor vehicle, not requiring a transport endorsement,
making Sukharam's LMV license valid. The insurer failed to prove
non-agricultural use, and cited precedents were inapplicable as
they involved different facts (e.g., passengers in trollies). The
objection was rejected, and Issue 3 was thus decided against the
insurer.
9.2. Claimants sought ₹88,95,000 for Pukhraj and ₹85,35,000 for
Vikram, alleging both earned ₹15,000/ per month as mechanics.
However, no authentic evidence (e.g., Exhibit-11 lacked credibility)
was adduced which supported the claimed ₹15,000/- per month
income. A notional income of ₹5,000/- per month was thus
adopted based on minimum wages.
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (7 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
10. I am of the view that the award rendered by the learned
Tribunal/Trial court is well-reasoned and supported by cogent legal
and factual grounds. Let us see how.
11. The appellant-insurer contention is that the tractor, insured
under a "Farmer's Package Policy" for agricultural use, was being
used commercially with a trolley on a public road, violating the
policy terms. However, there was no evidence to prove the tractor
was used for non-agricultural or commercial purposes. The
tribunal's findings, supported by the lack of contrary evidence
from the insurer, established that the tractor's use did not violate
the policy. It rightly emphasized that the burden to prove such a
breach lies with the insurer, which they failed to discharge.
11.1. Qua validity of Driver's License, the driver, Sukharam,
concededly held a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license. Yet again, a
tractor with a trolley is classified as a light motor vehicle, not
requiring a separate transport endorsement. The rather over
emphatic argument, that the licence holder, who was driving the
vehicle had his licence in the category of LMV and therefore, was
not an authorised driver of the tractor, is being noticed only to be
rejected in view of the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Bajaj
Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rambha Devi1.
11.2. As regards the credibility of eyewitness Amarchand (AW-3),
alleging he was a planted witness due to contradictions in his
testimony and his relation to the deceased, I find no merit in this
argument. Amarchand (AW-3) was named in the FIR lodged
promptly after the incident. Thus hold that he was not a credible
witness as he was planted by the claimants is also completely
1 2024(1) SCC 818
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (8 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
misconceived. At the very first instance when the FIR was lodged
he was named therein by the claimants. Merely on the
presumption which is being drawn erroneously by the learned
counsel, based on certain contradiction in its statement, it cannot
be a conclusive finding that he is planted witness, as is being
canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. The learned trial
court has rightly gone through the entire deposition and found the
said objection to be unbelievable. It rightly held that minor
contradictions do not negate his eyewitness account, especially
given the corroborative evidence like the FIR, site map, and MTO
report.
11.3. The insurer claimed contributory negligence by the
deceased motorcyclist, Pukhraj, stating that he was not wearing a
helmet. It is also urged that the accident's location in the middle
of a 20-ft-wide road and the MTO report suggesting high speeds
by both vehicles indicated shared liability. Per contra, the tribunal's
findings, upheld by the court, were based on evidence (site map,
Exhibit-3, and site condition, Exhibit-4) showing the tractor veered
to the wrong side, causing a head-on collision. The MTO report
and eyewitness testimony confirmed the tractor's rash and
negligent driving. The Trial court found no evidence supporting
contributory negligence by the motorcyclist. The absence of a
helmet, while noted, either was cause of accident and in any case,
did not alter the primary liability of the tractor driver. There is no
evidence that head injuries were solely attributable to this
omission. I find no fault with that view taken by the learned
tribunal.
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (9 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
12. In totality of circumstances, both the appeals are sans any
merit.
13. I may also add here that, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company wrongly relies on Subhash Chand Vs. Bassi &
Ors. : 2014 RAR. 29 (Raj.) & Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. Narayan
Lal & Anr. : 2012 RAR 41 (Raj.). A perusal of the said precedents,
in fact, reflects that the shoe is on the other foot. The aforesaid
judgments are being completely misread by learned counsel for
the appellant, inasmuch as, it is held therein that once it has come
on record that the trolley attached with the tractor was being used
for transportation for non-agriculture purposes, the same vitiates
the policy. In the present case, there is nothing on record to
reflect that the trolly was being used for non-agriculture purposes
and / or any commercial transport.
14. Furthermore, as regards the argument that there is certain
clerical error in the calculation of the award, once again, if it were
indeed clerical, as is being argued, it was open to the appellant -
Insurance Company to have taken appropriate steps before the
Tribunal in accordance with law.
15. No other point was argued. In the premise, no grounds to
interfere are made out, either on the appreciation of the evidence
or even otherwise in absence of any irregularities either on facts
or law.
16. In the parting, I may hasten to add that notional income
ought to have been higher than the minimum wages. Minimum
wages cannot be a straight jacket ironclad formula and is merely
an indicator for the Tribunal to determine the income. Be that as it
[2025:RJ-JD:20842] (10 of 10) [CMA-2088/2018]
may, claimants are since not in appeal and this Court shall refrain
to put the insurance company to the consequences thereof.
17. Dismissed.
18. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
166-167-DhananjayS/Rmathur
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
