Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1702 (HP)

Jaswant Singh v. Jagat Ram

2014-11-21

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These two appeals are outcome of one accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely Sukhwinder Singh, on 23.11.2001, while driving tractor No. PB-47-A-0486 whereby two labourers, namely, Naresh Kumar and Balbir Singh sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The dependents of the deceased filed two separate claim petitions before the Tribunal, for the grant of compensation and the Tribunal determined both the claim petitions by passing two separate awards of the same date in MAC Petitions No. 16/03 RBT 67/05/03 and 17/03 RBT 81/05/03, respectively, whereby and where under the insurer was saddled with the liability with right of recovery from the owner, hereinafter referred to as "the impugned awards", for short. Thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. Brief Facts. 2. A perusal of the record do disclose that the claimants have filed two claim petitions against the brick-kiln owner and driver of the offending tractor and the particulars of the insurance company was not known. The respondents have filed objections, particularly owner-appellant herein and the particulars of the insurance company and also the owner of the offending vehicle Jaswant Singh were disclosed. It is stated that Jaswant Singh was later on arrayed as party respondent in the claim petitions before the Tribunal. 3. The respondents in the claim petitions, resisted and contested the claim petitions and following issues, on the pleadings of the parties, came to the framed in FAO No. 367/2007: (i) Whether Balbir Singh on dated 23.11.2001 at about 10 a.m. was travelling in tractor No. PB-47- A-0486 being driven by respondent No. 2 Sukhwinder Singh rashly and negligently at place Haroli-Jaijon road met with an accident in which Balbir Singh sustained fatal injuries to his person and died on the spot?.....OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and which of the respondents?....OPP (iii) Whether the tractor trolly in question was being used other than the agriculture purpose and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ..OPR-3. (iv) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor at the relevant time as alleged? OPR-3. (v) Whether the tractor was being driven without valid R.C. and insurance etc. ? .OPR3. (vi) Relief. 4. ..OPR-3. (iv) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor at the relevant time as alleged? OPR-3. (v) Whether the tractor was being driven without valid R.C. and insurance etc. ? .OPR3. (vi) Relief. 4. The following issues came to be framed in FAO No. 368 of 2007. (i) Whether Naresh Kumar on dated 23.11.2001 at about 10 a.m. was travelling in tractor No. PB-47- A-0486 being driven by respondent No. 2 Sukhwinder Singh rashly and negligently at place Haroli-Jaijon road and as such met with an accident in which Naresh Kumar sustained fatal injuries to his person and died on the spot?.....OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and which of the respondents?.... OPP (iii) Whether the tractor trolly in question was being used other than the agriculture purpose and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? .. OPR-3. (iv) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor at the relevant time as alleged? .. OPR-3. (v) Whether the tractor was being driven without valid R.C. and insurance etc. ? OPR3. (vi) Relief. 5. During the course of trial, Ram Nath appeared in the witness-box and stated that he had hired the tractor for carrying bricks for the construction of fodder storage shed in the village where he was carrying on agriculture vocations. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimants have proved by leading evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, accordingly decided issues in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 7. In terms of the Registration Certificate and the insurance policy, copy of which are on the record, the tractor was only meant for agriculture vocations and, that too, of the insured and the insured was permitted to utilise the tractor for his own agriculture vocations, for the reasons that he is an agriculturist and accordingly, the insured, in terms of the terms and conditions contained in the Registration Certificate, executed the contract with the insurer. Thus, it is admitted fact of the parties that the tractor was meant only for agriculture vocations, that too, of the insured and not for any other purpose. 8. Thus, it is admitted fact of the parties that the tractor was meant only for agriculture vocations, that too, of the insured and not for any other purpose. 8. The claimants have specifically averred in the claim petitions that deceased were labourers in the brick-kiln and they had loaded the bricks in the offending tractor and were travelling on the same which met with an accident and they sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It is not the case of the claimants that the deceased were labourers of the owner Jaswant Singh or it is also not the case of the claimants that the tractor was being used for agriculture vocations at that relevant point of time by the insured and even the bricks were being used for raising construction in relation to the agriculture vocations of the insured. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that the insured has committed wilful breach. 9. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant argued that it was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner/insured has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The case, as admitted by the parties, is that the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the Registration Certificate not to speak of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Had there been any wilful breach committed by the owner, i.e., that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence or any other breach, in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of pleading and proving the factum by the insurer would have arisen. 10. On going through insurance policy, prima facie it reveals that the vehicle was meant only for the purpose of agriculture vocations, that too, for the owner/insured only. 11. The Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of compensation in favour of the claimants. Unfortunately, the claimants have not questioned the same and is upheld. 12. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed along with pending applications if any, and the impugned awards are upheld. 13. The insurance company has already deposited the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards, through payee's cheque account. The insurer is at liberty to lay motion before the Tribunal for effecting recovery from the owner. 13. The insurance company has already deposited the amount, the same be released in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards, through payee's cheque account. The insurer is at liberty to lay motion before the Tribunal for effecting recovery from the owner. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in the connected appeal. 14. Send down the record forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.