New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Karam Singh and three Ors.

J.P. Singh, J.—New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against

award dated 29032003 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, in file No. 376/Claims titled Karam Singh and Anr. vs. Prethvi Singh and

Ors., awarding an amount of Rs. 2.16.000/ as compensation for the death of the son of the claimants.

Facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated thus:

Pritam Singh, in connection with his agricultural pursuits, was riding a tractor to identify the land, which had to be ploughed by tractor No.

JK02L5391 when it turned turtle, causing multiple injuries to Pritam Singh, who later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants are the unfortunate

parents of deceased Pritam Singh. The parents' claim was contested by the Insurance Company, besides the owner and driver of the tractor.

The Tribunal framed following issues so as to resolve the issues, which had been raised by the parties in their respective pleadings:

Whether accident involving death of deceased Pritam Singh occurred to negligence of the driver of vehicle bearing registration No. JK02L

5391 on 2.8.2000? OPP.

If issue No. 1 is proved what compensation petitioners are entitled to? OPP.

Whether terms and conditions of policy of insurance have been violated so insurer is not liable to indemnify owner? OPR3.

Relief.

It appears that Insurance Company had taken a plea that the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy had been violated and, as such,

Company was not liable to indemnify the owner. The claimants produced Sat Pal Singh, Sher Singh and one of the claimants Karam Singh, as their

witnesses. No evidence was, however, adduced by the respondents in rebuttal.

On the strength of the evidence produced by the claimants, the Tribunal decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and Issue No. 3

against the appellantInsurance Company.

Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company, questions the impugned award on the plea that tractor had

been used by the owner in violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy and in that view of the matter, the Company was not liable to indemnify the

owner, and that the Tribunal had erred in appreciating this plea of the Insurance Company. Learned counsel refers to M/s. Natwar Parikh and Co.

Ltd vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported as AIR 2005 SC 3428, to urge that tractor was a goods carrier and use of tractor by the

deceased was in violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy, which aspect of the case, learned counsel argues, had not been taken note of by the

Tribunal.

Shri R.P. Jamwal, learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the tractor had been insured for agricultural purposes and

in terms of the Insurance Policy, extra premium had been charged by the Insurance Company for the carriage of persons in the tractor. He submits

that the appeal of the Insurance Company was bereft of any substance and was liable to be rejected with costs.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment relied upon by Shri R.K. Gupta.

At the outset, I may say that the judgment cited by Shri Gupta has no application to the facts of the present case, because the issue raised in

M/s. Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd vs. State of Kamataka and others (supra) pertained to a tractortrailer and not with respect to the tractor

simpliciter. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had examined the case cited by Shri Gupta in the context of a text statute and that too as to whether

or not a tractortrailer would fall within the definition of a goods carrier. This judgment may not, thus, help Shri Gupta.

That apart, no evidence had been led by the Insurance Company to prove that the owner had violated the terms and conditions of the

Insurance Policy. As against this, there is a positive assertion of the claimants in their claim petition that the deceased was riding the tractor with a

view to take the driver to identify the field, which he wanted him to plough for him. The activity undertaken by the deceased in boarding the tractor

to take the tractor to identify the field for its ploughing, would not, in my opinion, looked from any angle, fall outside the purview of the agricultural

pursuits, so as to say that the terms of the Insurance Policy had been violated by the insured. Even otherwise, this plea does not appear to have

been raised by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have rendered any judgment on this issue.

Shri Gupta tried to urge that claim allowed by the Tribunal was excessive. This plea of Shri Gupta, needs notice only to be rejected, because

an insurer is not entitled to question the quantum of compensation unless permission had been sought by it under Section 170 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. Even otherwise, the claim, on the face of it, is reasonable and does not appear to be exorbitant or excessive in any manner

whatsoever.

For all what has been said above, there is no force in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed, with costs quantified at Rs. 5.000/ (Rupees

five thousand).

Registrar Judicial is directed to release the deposited amount in favour of respondent2, along with interest accrued thereon, because

respondent1 is stated to have died, after proper identification of the surviving respondent.