Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3409 (PNJ)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vijay Singh

2006-09-01

MAHESH GROVER, UMA NATH SINGH

body2006
Judgment Mahesh Grover, J. 1. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. is in appeal against award dated 3.8.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, rewari (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in M. A. C. T. Case No.42 of 28.8.2002/9.5.2005. 2. In a motor vehicle accident which took place on 24.6.2002, claimant Vijay singh suffered serious injuries resulting in 70 per cent disability to him on account of amputation of his right leg. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,95,000 to the claimant on a petition (M. A. C. T. Case no.42 of 28.8.2002/9.5.2005) preferred by him under the provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act)and directed the appellant with which the offending tractor No. HR 36-C 6285 stood insured to pay the compensation. 3. The only contention that has been raised by Ms. Vandana Malhotra is that the appellant could not be held liable to make the payment of the compensation amount in view of the fact that the claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the offending vehicle which he had hired for carrying the fodder and thus, the tractor in question was being used for carrying a passenger in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this court in New india Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Tarawati, 1994 acj 822 (Pandh) and another judgment of karnataka High Court in Kenchappa V/s. V. Jayalakshmamma, 2005 ACJ 290 (Karnataka ). 4. We have thoughtfully considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, but are unable to agree with her. It has been established by way of evidence that claimant Vijay Singh had hired the offending tractor for carrying the fodder which belonged to him in the tractor-trolley. Thus, the tractor and the trolley in question were being used only for agricultural purposes. The claimant was travelling along with the fodder. According to the provisions of sec. 147 of the Act (as amended in the year 1994), the insurance policy would cover the risk of the third party, as also the owner of the goods. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Baljit kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC ). 147 of the Act (as amended in the year 1994), the insurance policy would cover the risk of the third party, as also the owner of the goods. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Baljit kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC ). As noticed above, the tractor in question was being used for agricultural purposes and if the owner of the goods was sitting thereon, it cannot be said that the same was not being used for agricultural purposes or the person travelling to watch the goods was a passenger on it. Madhya Pradesh High Court in malkibai V/s. Badriprasad, 1996 ACJ 38 (MP), in almost identical facts, held as under: " (13) The next point that arises for determination in the case is as to whether the insurance company is liable to make good the loss. It is not in dispute that the motor tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and carrying the straw load even on hire would be a work for agricultural purposes. Nowadays after coming into force of the ceiling law in the country an owner of the tractor cannot sustain tractor only by working for himself, he can use the tractor for cultivating the land of others and for assisting in the agricultural operations of other cultivators and that would also be deemed to be an agricultural purpose. (14) If a tractor was being used for agricultural purposes in assistance even for hire of other cultivators, the insurance company cannot be allowed to say that the same was being used not for agricultural purpose. (15) Deceased Narsingh had gone along with the tractor for putting the load of maize-straw on the trolley. His presence in the trolley was necessary for loading and unloading the maize-straw and, therefore, it will be further deemed that narsingh was working in the aid of agricultural purposes. " 5. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the claimant-injured, who was merely accompanying his goods, cannot be termed to be a passenger on the tractor in question. In our opinion, the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by Ms. Malhotra does not enhance the case of the appellant. 6. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. In our opinion, the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by Ms. Malhotra does not enhance the case of the appellant. 6. Resultantly, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award and the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.