NITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.VERSUSSHOBHA PRAKASH CHAVAN AND OTHERS...Mr. S v. Kulkarni
Legal Reasoning
( 1 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 2015IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD923 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1058 OF 2015UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.VERSUSSHOBHA PRAKASH CHAVAN AND OTHERS...Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for AppellantMr. R. B. Dhakane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4...WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2015 IN FA/1058/2015UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.VERSUSSHOBHA PRAKASH CHAVAN AND OTHERS…CORAM:AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.DATE:01.10.2025PER COURT :-1.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.06.2014,passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, in MACCast No.94 of 2008, the appellant has preferred this First Appeal.2.It was contended that on 03.11.2007, one Prakash Chavan andhis family members were traveling as labourers in a trolley which was ( 2 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 2015attached to a tractor bearing registration no. MH-11-G-4158. It is furthercontended that due to a sudden jerk, Prakash Chavan fell down from thetrolley and sustained grievous head injuries, which ultimately resulted in hisdeath. Pursuant to the said incident, the original claimants i.e., presentrespondent nos. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MotorVehicles Act before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ahmednagar, seeking compensation of Rs. 7,78,000/- to be recovered jointlyand severally from respondent no. 1, present respondent no. 5, and theappellant.3.Upon hearing the parties and assessing the evidence on record,the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award, therebyholding the owner and the insurer of the tractor jointly and severally liable topay compensation of Rs. 8,19,000/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the saidjudgment and award, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred thepresent appeal.4.With the able assistance of learned counsel Mr. S. V. Kulkarni andMr. R. B. Dhakane, I have perused the record and proceedings of the case. Forconvenience, the parties shall be referred to by their factual status to avoidambiguity.
Legal Reasoning
( 3 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 20155.Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant, submittedthat the sole objection in this First Appeal is that the trolley in which thedeceased was traveling was not insured with the appellant/InsuranceCompany. He further submitted that although the tractor was duly insuredwith the appellant at the relevant time, the attached trolley was not coveredunder the said insurance policy. In support of his contention, he placedreliance on the judgment of this Court in Chandrakant vs. Majlasbai & Others,reported in 2018 (1) T.A.C. 549 (Bom), and urged that under the givencircumstances, the appellant/Insurance Company be exonerated from theliability of indemnifying the owner of the tractor.6.Per contra, Mr. R. B. Dhakane, learned counsel for the claimants,drew attention to the latest pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inRoyal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Honnamma,reported in AIR 2025 SC 2641, and placed reliance on paragraphs 9 to 12 ofthe said judgment which reads as follow :“9.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perusedthe material/evidence on record. We have given seriousconsideration to the issue as it raises a mixed question of fact andlaw where both have to be harmoniously balanced.10.In the present case, the admitted fact is that the incidentoccurred while a tractor which was insured with the Appellant ( 4 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 2015was attached to a trailer and on the trailer a person was presentwho due to an unfortunate accident, fell off the trailer which wasbeing pulled by/driven by/attached to the tractor, resulting in thedeath of such person.11.Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer wasbeing pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer onwhich the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned,resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractorwhich was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not thecase that only because of some fault on the part of the trailerstand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give anexample: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and dueto some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, thenwithout the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant wouldnot be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident wasthe tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and insuch sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accidentwas caused by the tractor, as during the course of beingdriven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.12.Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to theaccident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of thedeceased, through the trailer. This being the position in thepresent case, the principles emanating from the decisions wherethe Courts have held that the trailer has to be separatelyregistered with the insurance company to make it liable, wouldnot be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case areclearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel forthe appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficialand welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v NationalInsurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela vDivisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCCOnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accidentbeing the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot belost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an ( 5 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 2015insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a thirdvehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability wouldpass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accidentbecause it is the result of the action in the same chain of eventswhich cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, thisCourt is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of ournation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed bytechnicality.”7.He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now clarifiedthat even if the trolley is not insured and if the liability arises out of the use ofsuch a trolley while attached to an insured tractor, the Insurance Companyshall be liable if the tractor is covered under a valid insurance policy. Hefurther contended that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment inHonnamma (supra) and, therefore, the appeal must fail.8.Upon hearing the submissions, I have framed the following pointfor my consideration :Sr. No.PointFinding1.Whether the learned Tribunal has committed an errorin holding the appellant jointly and severally liable to satisfy the impugned award ?No.2.What order ?As per final order.9.The material facts of the case are undisputed. It is not in disputethat the deceased Prakash Chavan was traveling in a trolley and fell ( 6 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 2015therefrom, sustaining injuries. It is also not disputed that the trolley wasuninsured, but was at the relevant time attached to and being pulled bytractor bearing registration no. MH-11-G-4158. The said tractor was owned byrespondent no. 5 and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company.10.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Sureme Court in thecase of Honnamma (supra) it is evident that the trolley was not stand alone,but at the relevant time it was attached and was being driven by the tractorthat was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. In view of that andin the light of the finding rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inHonnamma’s case (supra) the objections raised by the appellant/InsuranceCompany in the present matter does not hold any merit.11.Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant/InsuranceCompany, has fairly conceded the extant legal position in view of thejudgment in Honnamma (supra), and has submitted that the only issue raisedin this appeal pertains to the insurer’s liability in such a situation. ( 7 ) 923 FA 1058 OF 201512.In view of this, I pass the following order :-ORDERa.First Appeal stands dismissed. b.Any amount, if deposited by the Insurance Company in thisCourt pursuant to any order passed by this Court together withstatutory amount, the claimants/present respondent nos.1 to 5are permitted to withdraw with accrued interest thereon, inproportion, if any as directed by the learned Tribunal.c.Security/surety/undertaking, if any given by the claimants,stands discharged.d.Pending Civil Application(s), if any, also stands disposed ofin view of disposal of the First Appeal.13.This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by both thelearned counsels for early and precise disposal of the appeal, considering thesettled position of law.[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]PRW