Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1328 (MP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ashish

2008-11-14

S.SAMVATSAR

body2008
Judgment S.Samvatsar, J. ( 1. ) -This appeal is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by the award dated 9.3.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vidisha in Claim Case No. 76 of 1995 by which the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 to the respondents-claimants towards compensation for the death of the deceased Ramesh who died in a motor accident. ( 2. ) Only question involved in this appeal is about the liability of the insurance company. ( 3. ) From perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that on the date of incident, deceased Ramesh was travelling in a tractor- trolley bearing registration No. MOV 6433. Said tractor-trolley met with an accident with truck bearing registration No. MOV 7271. As a result of the accident, deceased sustained injuries and died due to injuries sustained by him. ( 4. ) According to the claimants, deceased Ramesh was carrying on business of agent and used to earn his livelihood by selling vegetables. On the date of incident, he was sitting in the tractor along with vegetables and was going to market for selling the same. ( 5. ) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the tractor-trolley was insured only for agricultural purpose and the purpose for which the deceased was travelling in the tractor is not covered by the term agricultural purpose and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. ( 6. ) Counsel for the appellant insurance company has invited attention of this court to the policy, Exh. D1, which shows that the vehicle was insured only for agricultural purpose and not for any other purpose. ( 7. ) Now the question involved in this appeal is whether carrying of vegetables for sale in the market will amount to agricultural purpose? ( 8. ) Counsel for the appellant insurance company invited attention of this court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC). In that case the deceased was travelling in a tractor along with bags of vegetables. Accident in that case occurred in the year 1991 and the question before the Apex Court was whether said purpose is covered by the term agricultural purpose. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC). In that case the deceased was travelling in a tractor along with bags of vegetables. Accident in that case occurred in the year 1991 and the question before the Apex Court was whether said purpose is covered by the term agricultural purpose. In that case, the Apex Court relying on earlier judgments in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC) and other cases, has negated the contention of the claimant that the deceased who was travelling along with hags of vegetables purchased by him and was transporting them to market for sale is an agricultural purpose. ( 9. ) In view of the aforesaid judgment, in the present case, it cannot be said that the deceased was travelling in the tractor for agricultural purpose and as such the risk of the insurance company is not covered and it is only respondent Nos. 4 and 5, i.e., owner and driver of the tractor in question who are liable to pay the compensation. ( 10. ) From perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that the insurance company was granted stay in the present case only on the condition of depositing the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 and there was no stay against the claimants for withdrawing the said amount. Said order was passed on 14.10.90 and in the meantime, the amount must have been withdrawn by the claimants. In such circumstances, now no useful purpose will be served by directing the claimants to deposit the said amount which is recoverable from the owner and driver of the tractor. In such circumstances, it is directed that the said amount shall be recovered by the insurance company from the owner and driver of the tractor in question. ( 11. ) So far as remaining liability is concerned, the claimants are free to recover the said amount from the owner and driver of the tractor. ( 12. ) The appeal stands allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.