Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 503 (RAJ)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshanti

2012-02-22

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 11th March, 2005 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapurcity, decreed an amount of Rs.3,03,500/- in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 5 and against the appellant-Insurance Co. and respondent Nos.6 & 7 jointly and severally. 2. The background facts of the case, in nut shell, are that the deceased Vishambhar was working as a helper on Tractor No.RJ-25-R-6862. Shri Bhoor Singh was its driver. It is alleged that when they were carrying the sand in trailor of the tractor for pouring the same on the sail of dam (ca/ks dh iky), the driver of the tractor suddenly took a sharp turn at a fast speed, with the result, the tractor turned turtle and Vishambhar sustained injuries on his head. He succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. 3. One FIR No.287/2002 came to be registered of this accident at Police Station Bamanwas. The police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet in the Court and the dependents of deceased Vishambhar filed a claim petition in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapurcity. 4. The Tribunal having recorded the statement of witnesses awarded an amount of Rs.3,03,500/- in favour of the respondents-claimants No.1 to 5. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the tractor along with trolly was in fact insured for agricultural purposes, whereas the same was being used for commercial purposes. Thus the owner of the tractor committed a breach of the conditions of Insurance Policy and on account of there being violation or breach of the conditions of the Insurance policy, the appellant- Insurance Co. was not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants-respondents No.1 to 5. The Tribunal committed gross error in not appreciating this aspect and arbitrarily passed the said award in favour of the claimants. 7. Learned counsel further canvassed that the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors. as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P. Chinnava and Ors. were not considered by the Tribunal on this point and capriciously rejected the plea of the learned Counsel of the Insurance Co. Learned counsel further canvassed that the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors. as well as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P. Chinnava and Ors. were not considered by the Tribunal on this point and capriciously rejected the plea of the learned Counsel of the Insurance Co. Learned Counsel further canvassed that it was not proved that the deceased Vishambhar was employed on the said tractor entailed in the accident. The manner, in which the story of the accident has been presented before the Tribunal, tangibly suggests that no such accident of the Tractor ever occurred. Hence, the liability to pay the compensation cannot be fastened upon the-appellant-Insurance Co. and thus, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 8. None present for the respondents. 9. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully scanned the impugned award, it is noticed that the deceased was employed as helper on the tractor. The police after completion of investigation found that Vishambhar died in accident of tractor and thus, filed the charge-sheet in the Court for trial. So far as the accident is concerned, it is not disputed that Vishambhar died while working on tractor. It is also not disputed that when the driver of the tractor suddenly took a sharp turn at a fast speed, the tractor capsized and Vishambhar sitting on Tractor sustained head injuries which caused his death. 10. The main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes whereas the same was being used for commercial purposes. Undeniably and undisputedly, the driver of the tractor and the deceased helper Vishambhar were carrying sand in the trolly of the tractor for pouring the same on the sail of dam. It is not proved from any evidence available on record that the tractor was being used other than the agricultural purposes. The Tribunal is found to have discussed all the facts and circumstances of the case adlongum and decided the issues No.3, 4 & 5 in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the Insurance Co. The impugned award is found to be well meritted based on sound and cogent reasoning and suffers from no infirmity. 11. The accident took place way back in the year 2002. The impugned award is found to be well meritted based on sound and cogent reasoning and suffers from no infirmity. 11. The accident took place way back in the year 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire amount of compen-sation has already been disbursed to the claimants, hence, in view of all these facts emerging on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the said award and thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed.