Singh, Advocates. vs NIRMLA & ORS

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”] assailing the award dated

01.08.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] in MACT No. 269/2010. 2. The proceedings arise out of a fatal motor accident that occurred on

16.07.2009 at about 5:00 AM, in which one Mr. Mahender unfortunately lost his life. A tractor, bearing registration No. HR-19-A-5094 [“insured vehicle”], was being driven by its owner, respondent No. 4 herein. Attached to the insured vehicle was a trolley loaded with packets of chana, in which the deceased, described variably as a “second driver” or Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 19:00:03 MAC.APP. 881/2013 Page 1 of 10 a “helper”, was travelling along with the goods. When the driver suddenly applied the brakes, the deceased was thrown off the trolley, sustained grievous injuries, and subsequently passed away. 3.

FIR No. 274/2009 was registered at Police Station Nangloi under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the driver of the insured vehicle, and chargesheet was filed thereafter. 4. The dependents of the deceased, namely – his wife, son and mother, were the claimants before the Tribunal [respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein]. The driver-cum-owner of the insured vehicle, who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, is respondent No. 4 before this Court. 5. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving against respondent No. 4, and assessed compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 7,59,536/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, under the following heads: Sr. No. Heads Amounts

3. Loss of dependency Rs. 6,34,536/- Funeral charges Rs. 25,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 7,59,536/-

6. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Seth, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Bhuvneshwar Tyagi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Bhavnesh Dalal, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 7. Mr. Seth raises the following three grounds in support of the appeal: Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 19:00:03 MAC.APP. 881/2013 Page 2 of 10 a) that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company because the deceased was travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor, and the policy did not separately insure the trolley; b) that the Tribunal incorrectly applied an addition of 30% towards future prospects, whereas the Constitution Bench judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1 clearly stipulates that future prospect for a person of the deceased’s age, i.e. 44 years, should be calculated at 25%2. c) that the compensation under non-pecuniary heads requires modification in accordance with the standardised amounts laid down in Pranay Sethi. Each of these contentions are considered in turn. A. WHETHER THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 IS COVERED BY THE INSURANCE POLICY

8. The insurance policy in the present case, was a “Farmer Package Policy”, under which the tractor stood insured. One of the limitations contained in the policy [Ex. R2W1/1] stipulated: “Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted by law” The Insurance Company contends that the trolley was not

9. independently insured and, hence, no liability could be fastened upon it for the death of a person travelling therein. The Tribunal rejected this contention, relying on the definition of “agricultural tractor” in Rule 2(b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which provides as follows: “2. Definitions. 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 [hereinafter “Pranay Sethi”]. 2 Paragraph 59.4 of Pranay Sethi. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 19:00:03 MAC.APP. 881/2013 Page 3 of 10 (b) “agricultural tractor” means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle;” trailers

10. The issue is, in my view, no longer res integra, in light of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Honnamma3. In that case, the deceased was travelling in a tractor-trailer, and the Insurance Company had contested its liability on the ground that the trailer was not covered under the policy. The Supreme Court rejected this contention for the following reasons: “10. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the incident occurred while a tractor which was insured with the Appellant was attached to a trailer and on the trailer a person was present who due to an unfortunate accident, fell off the trailer which was being pulled by/driven by/attached to the tractor, resulting in the death of such person.

11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.

12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1027 [hereinafter “Honnamma”]. Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 19:00:03 MAC.APP. 881/2013 Page 4 of 10 company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd.4; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd.5, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.6] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.”7

11. After examining earlier decisions, including Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude8, and the decision of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C.M. Jaya9, as well as the requirements under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Supreme Court proceeded to hold as follows: “17. In this light, let us examine the insurance policy, holistically. Relevant clauses read as under: ‘The Policy does not cover: a) Use for Racing, Pace Making, Reliability trails or Speed Testing b) Use for the Carriage of passengers for hire or reward. c) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted under law. LIMITS OF LIABILITY: