Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 66 (MP)

Umrao Singh v. Bharatlal

2007-01-17

S.K.KULSHRESTHA, S.K.SETH

body2007
ORDER Kulshrestha, J. -- 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 12.4.2006 of the MACT Ratlam in Claim Case No. 109/04, by which for the injuries sustained by the appellant in an accident, the appellant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/- against the claim of Rs. 12,75,000/-. 2. According to the applicant (appellant), on 29.12.2003 when he was travelling as representative of owner of the goods in the trolley of a tractor with the agricultural produce namely onion, as the tractor trolley reached Barbodna, on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor by respondent No. 1 Bharatlal, the trolley over turned resulting in the fracture of left femur bone of the applicant. He was rushed to the District Hospital, Ratlam for treatment and the report of the accident was lodged at Police Station, Namli. Since his bone did not unite, he had to proceed to Udaipur for treatment in the Jagruti Orthopedics Hospital where a rod was inserted in the bones. Since compensation as demanded was not awarded and the Insurance Company was exonerated, the appellant has filed this appeal under S. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the Act). 3. In defending the case, the Insurance Company filed a written statement and pleaded that the vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of the policy with the result the Insurance Company was relieved of its obligation to pay compensation. It was further pleaded that in the event the Insurance Company is saddled with the liability to pay compensation, right may be reserved to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation together with interest paid by the Insurance Company from the claimants. 4. Though learned counsel for appellant submits that the amount of Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is neither just or proper nor commensurate with the harm suffered, we find that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all factors in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled only to Rs. 55,000/-. In determining the said amount, the Tribunal took into consideration the medical expenses of Rs. 17,000/-, transport Rs. 3,000/-, loss of income Rs. 5,000/-, general damages of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering. Since we find that the compensation awarded is adequate, we now proceed to decide the real contest between the parties namely the liability of the Insurance Company. 5. 17,000/-, transport Rs. 3,000/-, loss of income Rs. 5,000/-, general damages of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering. Since we find that the compensation awarded is adequate, we now proceed to decide the real contest between the parties namely the liability of the Insurance Company. 5. In view of the testimony of PW 1 Umarao Singh (claimant) and PW 2 Rajendrasingh, witness supporting claimant, the claimant contended that he was in the trolley with the goods. Learned counsel for respondent submits that no document from the police station was produced to the effect that agriculture produce was being transported in the trolley under the care of the appellant. Nothing has been shown to indicate that the agricultural produce was in fact seized by the police. In a case of accident, what is normally seized is the motor vehicle and, therefore, in absence of any documentary or oral evidence, we are unable to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for respondent that evidence to the effect that agricultural produce was seized by the police, was not produced before the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, merely on account of the failure to obtain police documents which mayor may not contain seizure of the goods that were carried in the trolley, we do not find any substance in said contention. Under S. 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of owner of the goods or his authorized representative. Under these circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot wriggle out of its liability for payment of the amount with which other respondents, namely owner and driver of vehicle, are saddled. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent is that there is nothing to indicate that the appellant was travelling as owner of the goods or as agent of the owner of goods. It is not disputed that the Insurance Company has covered the risk of the owner and labourer. Therefore, even if he is treated as owner or labourer, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability. It is only a person travelling as gratuitous passenger that the Insurance Company becomes entitled to recover the amount from the insured in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit [2004 (2) BLJ 179 = 2004 ACJ 428]. 6. It is only a person travelling as gratuitous passenger that the Insurance Company becomes entitled to recover the amount from the insured in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit [2004 (2) BLJ 179 = 2004 ACJ 428]. 6. Since the claim of the appellant was that he was travelling as owner of the goods, even assuming that he was only an agent of the owner, the liability can still be fastened on the Insurance Company in accordance with the provisions of S. 147 (1) (b) of the Act. Even if assuming that he was travelling as a labourer, since the liability of one plus four was covered by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was still liable. Under these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company was not liable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. In view of the above discussion, while affirming the award of Rs. 55,000/-, we hold that the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is also collectively and severally liable along with respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. In view of aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent stated hereinabove i.e. the liability of the Insurance Company. The appeal is, thus, disposed of with no order as to costs.