Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 403 (MP)

Ramkumar v. Ravina Begum

2025-07-17

RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

body2025
ORDER 1. This miscellaneous appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant/owner for setting aside the award dated 13.1.2014 passed by the Additional MACT, Karera, Distt. Shivpuri, in Claim Case No.11/2013 as against him and directing Insurance Company to pay the compensation. Vide impugned order learned MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.4,60,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants for the death of deceased Israr in road accident. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.11.2011 deceased Israrar along with his companion Mohd. Sahid Rain was going from Jalaun to Shivpuri Mandi for purchasing vegetables in the bolero pickup vehicle bearing registration No.UP 92 T 0457 owned by the appellant. On Shivpuri Jhansi Road ahead of Sirsaud roundabout when they reached in front of Shivhare Dhaba, the driver of bolero pickup namely Govind by driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently dashed an unknown truck from behind, as a result of which Israr by sustaining injury on head and mouth died on the spot. The companion of deceased Shahid also sustained injury in the accident. The driver of bolero pickup Govind ran way from the spot leaving the vehicle. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/owner that the deceased was going in the bolero vehicle bearing registration No.UP92 T0457 along with Mohd. Shahid which was being driven by Govind who later on died. It is submitted that the FIR (Ex.P/2) indicates that the deceased was going on the aforesaid vehicle to purchase vegetable from Vegetable Market, Shivpuri, and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh K.K. and another, 2008 ACJ 1741 the deceased is well covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivawwa and another v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2018 ACJ 1288 . It is also submitted that the appellant has examined himself as NAW-1 and he in his statement has categorically stated that deceased was going to purchase vegetable from Vegetable Market, Shivpuri, and in between the vehicle collided with an unknown vehicle. Ltd. and another, 2018 ACJ 1288 . It is also submitted that the appellant has examined himself as NAW-1 and he in his statement has categorically stated that deceased was going to purchase vegetable from Vegetable Market, Shivpuri, and in between the vehicle collided with an unknown vehicle. The claim petition is filed against the owner, driver and Insurance Company of the bolero vehicle UP92 T 0457, but since the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods, therefore, Insurance Company is liable under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further submitted that in this respect learned Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation. Hence, prays for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that admittedly the aforesaid vehicle was not carrying goods, rather it is stated that the deceased and other persons were going to purchase vegetables. Moreover, the appellant/owner of the said vehicle has not taken any plea in his written statement that because the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In absence of such pleading, no heed can be paid to the evidence. That apart, Ramkumar (NAW-1) has in his cross-examination stated that he heard that deceased was going on the vehicle for purchasing vegetables. In para 3 he has stated that he was not in the aforesaid vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, he is not in a position to tell how such accident happened and where the deceased was proceeding for in the vehicle etc. Therefore, no cogent evidence has come in the evidence of Ramkumar (NAW-1) in this respect. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated by the learned Tribunal. There is no ground for interference and therefore, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants has supported the version of the appellant by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Suresh K.K. and Shivawwa (supra) and submitted that since the deceased was going on the vehicle for purchasing vegetables, therefore, he falls under the definition of owner of the goods and is well covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such, Insurance Company is liable for paying the compensation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In case of Shivawwa and another (supra) the facts are that the person after unloading his goods grains from tractor-trailer at commission agent's shop was returning when he fell off the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving and sustained fatal injuries. The Tribunal concluded that accident occurred due to negligence of driver of tractor-trailer and awarded compensation holding insurance company liable. The High Court in appeal found that deceased was not travelling in the goods vehicle along with his goods at the time of accident and exonerated insurance company from liability. Eyewitnesses had corroborated claimants' version and deposed that they were carrying maize in the vehicle and while returning met with accident. There was no evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company in support of its contention. It was held by the Hon'ble apex Court that the Tribunal's conclusion that the deceased travelled along with his goods is a possible view which could not be disturbed by the High Court in appeal. Insurance Company was held liable for compensation amount. 8. In case of Suresh K.K. and another (supra) which is a case in which claimant/respondent was a coolie worker and he allegedly hired an autorickshaw which was a goods carriage vehicle. The accident occurred when he was sitting by the side of the driver. It was held by Hon'ble apex Court in para 13 to 16 that the claimant had not been travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods and he shall not be covered by the policy of the insurance. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident took place on or about 13.8.1999 and further in view of the fact that claimant was a coolie worker and he would not be in a position to realize the dues from the owner of the vehicle, the Hon'ble apex Court in para 16 has concluded that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, with a view to do complete justice between the parties, a direction should be given to the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimant and realize the same from the owner of the vehicle. 9. Keeping in mind the law laid down in aforesaid cases, now I turn to the factual aspects of this case. 9. Keeping in mind the law laid down in aforesaid cases, now I turn to the factual aspects of this case. 10. Here in this case, as regards the factum of accident, issue No.1, which has been affirmatively decided and has not been challenged while arguing on the appeal by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle. The stress while arguing the appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the submission that since the deceased was the owner of the goods in the offending vehicle bolero pickup, he is covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 11. In this regard, if we travel through the evidence on record, it is found that the appellant Ramkumar has examined himself before learned Tribunal. He in his chief examination has only stated to the extent that Govind Narayan was his driver on bolero pickup vehicle No.UP 92 T 0457 and the insurance policy of the vehicle is Ex.D/1. The photocopy of driving licence of Govind Narayan is also submitted by him. The vehicle was insured with the respondent/insurance company. He in cross-examination has stated that he has heard that the deceased was going to purchase vegetables, but he did not depose the fact emphatically in clear terms that whether the deceased was going in the vehicle for purchasing goods. In crossexamination para 3 he admitted that he was not in the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, he is not in a position to state that how the accident took place and where the deceased was sitting in the vehicle. He also expressed his ignorance as to whether goods were loaded in the vehicle at the time of accident or not. He also deposed that he did not know deceased Israr and he cannot say that deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a passenger or not. 12. The statement of Ramkumar (NAW-1) does not inspire confidence of the Court on the point that deceased Israr was sitting in the offending vehicle as a owner of the goods and he was going to Shivpuri for purchasing vegetables. Moreover, in absence of pleading in the written statement in this respect no evidence can be held admissible. 12. The statement of Ramkumar (NAW-1) does not inspire confidence of the Court on the point that deceased Israr was sitting in the offending vehicle as a owner of the goods and he was going to Shivpuri for purchasing vegetables. Moreover, in absence of pleading in the written statement in this respect no evidence can be held admissible. The written statement of appellant Ramkumar is on record and it reveals that there is no pleading in it as regards the deceased being owner of the goods was travelling in the vehicle, and therefore, he is covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Company is liable for paying the compensation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in its entirety, the law laid down in aforesaid citations is of no help to the appellant in the present case. 13. Having regard to the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, since there is no pleading qua the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and that he is covered under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and in view of the fact that there is no sufficient and appropriate evidence in this regard on record, the appeal filed by the appellant/owner appears to be without substance. 14. In the background of aforesaid discussion, the appeal on behalf of the appellant/owner is found to be devoid of merit and therefore is hereby dismissed.