Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 631 (MP)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Amar Singh

2012-06-28

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2012
ORDER (Oral) 1. All these three revision petitions are taken up for final hearing by this common order as they arise out of common award dated 13th October, 2003 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in favour of the six claimants awarding different compensation to them. Respondent No.1 is the claimant, respondent No.2 is the driver and respondent No.3 is the owner of the offending vehicle in all these three revision petitions. Respondent No.4 is the Tribunal whose award is challenged in the present revision petitions and is a pro-forma respondent. None has appeared either on behalf of the claimant, driver or owner of the offending vehicle at the hearing of the present revision petitions and hence, the counsel for the revisionist has been heard finally in their absence. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to these revision petitions are that on 20th September,2001 around 9.45 p.m. in the night, certain persons were travelling in a tractor trolley (trolley bearing registration No.MP 06 JA 4455 attached to the tractor bearing registration No.MP 06 JA 4441) which met with an accident near Solanki Petrol Pump as the trolley became turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver. Six persons who were travelling in the tractor trolley at that time had suffered serious injuries and they filed separate claim petitions for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in which an objection to the maintainability of the claim petitions was taken by the Insurance Company stating that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation to the claimants as the tractor trolley at the time of the alleged accident was being driven contrary to the terms of the insurance policy. It was stated that the tractor trolley which caused the accident in which the claimants had suffered injuries was insured with the revisionist only for agricultural purposes whereas it was used at the time of accident as a passenger vehicle. Despite this objection to the maintainability of the claim petitions taken by the revisionist before the Tribunal, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed awards in favour of the claimants and awarded them different amounts depending on the injuries suffered by them. Despite this objection to the maintainability of the claim petitions taken by the revisionist before the Tribunal, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed awards in favour of the claimants and awarded them different amounts depending on the injuries suffered by them. It may be noted that the owner and driver of the vehicle did not file any written statement before the Claims Tribunal and they did not appear in the proceedings before the Tribunal despite service of notice of claim petitions on them. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist has submitted that these revision petitions have been filed as appeal against the impugned award of the Tribunal in favour of claimants in these revision petitions does not lie in view of the provisions contained in section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for appeal only against an award exceeding Rs.10,000/-. Since, in the present case, the award in favour of respondent No.1 in each of these three revision petitions was only for an amount of Rs.5,000/- each, appeal against such award under section 173 of the MV Act was not maintainable and, therefore, revision against the impugned awards which are less than Rs.5,000/- is proper and is maintainable in view of Five Judges Bench judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Shrikant and others, reported as 2007(2) JLJ 138 = 2007 ACJ 2809 . 4. The only short question that needs consideration in these revision petitions is whether an Insurance Company can be held liable in respect of the liability arising out of the accident caused by a vehicle insured with it if the vehicle at the time of accident was used by the registered owner of the vehicle in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy. This question has already been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two of its judgments viz. (i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Brij Mohan and others, reported as 2007 ACJ 1909 , and (ii) United Indian Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Sajerao and others, reported as 2008 ACJ 254 , wherein it has been held that an insurance company is not liable to the passengers travelling in a tractor trolley insured with the insurance company only for agricultural purposes. The question that arises for consideration in these revision petitions is, therefore, no longer res integra as the same is covered by the above referred two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. It shall be significant to mention that the revisionist had preferred three appeals being Misc.Appeals No.918/03,920/03 and 921/03 against the same award of the Tribunal that has been impugned in these revision petitions, as the award in those three cases was for more than Rs.10,000/-. All those three appeals preferred by the revisionist have been allowed by this Court vide its order dated 08th May, 2009, copy of which has been placed by the counsel for the revisionist on record of these petitions. This Court does not find any reason to take a view different than what has already been taken by this Court while allowing the three appeals against the same impugned award vide its order dated 08th May, 2009. In the considered opinion of this Court, the insurance company, revisionist herein, is not liable for payment of award amount to respondent No.1 ( claimant ) in the claim petitions. The claimant can recover the award amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, namely respondents 2 and 3 herein, as per law. 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, all these three revision petitions are allowed. The revisionist is held not liable to pay the award amount to any of the claimants in whose favour the impugned award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. All these three revision petitions stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order be kept in the files of the other two revision petitions namely Civil Revision No.122/07 and Civil Revision No.123/07 which have also been disposed of by this common order.