Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Compensation – Appellant was travelling in a tractor when the driver of the tractor driving in a rash and negligent manner dashed the tractor against a big mud stone, consequent to which appellant sustained grievous injuries – Claim petition u/s.166 – Tribunal held that claim of appellant was covered by the insurance policy and awarded compensation of Rs.9,02,324/- payable jointly by the owner of the vehicle and the respondent no.2-insurer – However, High Court held that appellant travelling in tractor was in breach of insurance policy and absolved the insurer from the liability to pay compensation – On appeal, held: High Court rightly found in favour of insurer that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods – Appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver – Resultantly, insurer was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor – However, in view of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court in various judgments, insurer directed to pay the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court rightly found in favour of respondent No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither the trailer was insured nor any trailer was attached to the tractor. Thus, the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver. As a result, the respondent No.2 (insurer) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the instant case. However, in the facts of the instant case, the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court. [Paras 9 and 10] [654-A-D]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarna Singh & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 297 : [2004] 1 SCR 180 ; Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC
656 ; Rani & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2018 (9) SCALE 310 ; Manuara Khatun and
Others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. (2017) 4 SCC 796 – referred to.
2. As regards, the determination of compensation amount by the tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court, the tribunal had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for just and proper compensation amount for different heads as are permissible. The High Court, therefore, was justified in not disturbing the said conclusion of the tribunal. The view so taken by the High Court affirmed. [Para 11] [654-F-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.