Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 147 (JHR)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mariam Minz

2007-03-04

DILIP KUMAR SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2007
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Alok Lal learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1-claimant. Inspite of service of notice other respondents who are the owner of the vehicle having not appeared. 2. The appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla in M.J.C. No. 37 of 1998 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- by way of compensation and directed the appellant-Insurance Company for payment of the said amount. 3. The claimant-respondent No. 1 is the mother of the deceased. The case of the claimant is that on 7.6.1998 her son Jaipal Minz was traveling in a tractor and going to Church. It was alleged that tractor was being driven very rashly and negligently, as a result of which it overturned. The deceased sustained injury and ultimately died. 4. On receipt of notice, owner of the tractor neither appeared nor filed any written statement. Appellant-Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground inter alia that claim case against the Insurance Company is not maintainable, inasmuch as the Company has no liability, if a person traveling in a tractor sustains injuries and dies. The claims tribunal recorded a finding that deceased was traveling in a tractor which met with an accident and the deceased died by reason of that accident. On the basis of the aforesaid finding and also on the finding that the tractor was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, the tribunal awarded compensation and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the said amount. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment on the ground inter alia that the tractor being the goods carrying vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable, if a person travels in the said vehicle as a passenger. Learned Counsel further submitted that in absence of any evidence that the tractor in which the deceased was traveling was covered under the policy, the insurance company cannot be held to be responsible. 6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that admittedly tractor was insured with the Insurance Company and, therefore, whatever amount of compensation was awarded by the tribunal, the same Is payable by the Insurance Company. 7. 6. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that admittedly tractor was insured with the Insurance Company and, therefore, whatever amount of compensation was awarded by the tribunal, the same Is payable by the Insurance Company. 7. As noticed above, owner of the vehicle did not appear in the claim case before the tribunal. In this appeal also, in-spite of service of notice by both process of Court and also by publication in the newspaper, they have not appeared. 8. Admittedly, tractor is a goods carrying vehicle and a person is not supposed to travel in a tractor from going to one place to another place. It is well settled that if any death or bodily injury is caused to a person while traveling in the goods carrying vehicle, the Insurance Company has no liability. I, therefore, hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent- owners are liable to pay entire compensation. 9. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal is allowed and it is held that respondent-owners of the vehicle are liable to pay compensation awarded by the Claims tribunal in the case under appeal. D.K. Sinha, J. 10. I agree.