BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Both R/o Gram Tumlia Kheri Tehsil Aklera District Jhalawar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 30/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the non- claimant/appellants (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 07.09.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, in MACT case No.144/2005, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondents was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded as compensation.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

20.02.2005, the deceased, Bheru Lal and Bala Ram, were returning from Bhawani Mandi to their village (Tumlia Kheri) after selling their crops in tractor-trolley No. RJ-17-R-2981. The driver [2025:RJ-JP:28957] (2 of 5) [CMA-4346/2007] of the said vehicle was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, and when the tractor reached near the Jonpur Tiraha, the tractor capsized, as a result of which, Bheru Lal and Bala Ram sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

3. It was stated in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased, Bala Ram, was 65 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus, prayed for awarding just and fair compensation.

4. After receiving notice to the claim petition, the non- claimant/appellants filed their reply to the claim petition on

10.12.2005, wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that the insured vehicle was insured with respondent No.3- Insurance Company, therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The non-claimant/respondent No.3- Insurance Company also filed a reply to the claim petition, wherein they denied the averments made in the claim petition and submitted that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license. It was further submitted that the insured vehicle was being used for carrying passengers, which was a gross violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four (4) issues.

7. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 examined AW-1- [2025:RJ-JP:28957] (3 of 5) [CMA-4346/2007] Karulal, AW-2 Bhuri Bai and AW-3 Mohanlal and produced Ex.1 to Ex.13 as documentary evidence.

8. The non-claimant/appellants, after being granted an opportunity, did not lead any evidence, and the non-claimant/respondent No.3- Insurance Company examined NAW-1 Ajay Verma and produced Ex.- NA-1 (Insurance Policy).

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, learned Tribunal decided issue Nos.1 & 2 in favour of the claimant/respondent Nos.1 & 2 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,33,000/-. However, since the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a license and the insured vehicle was used for carrying passengers despite being registered for agricultural purposes, the Insurance Company was exonerated, and liability to pay compensation was fastened upon the non- claimant/appellants.

10. Being aggrieved of which, the non-claimant/appellants (owner and driver) of the vehicle have preferred the present appeal.

11. The non-claimant/appellants are mainly concerned with the findings recorded under issue No.3, whereby the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the present appellants and the Insurance Company has been exonerated.

12. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellants submits that the deceased- Bala Ram was returning from Bhawani Mandi to his village (Tumlia Kheri) after selling his crops in tractor-trolley No. RJ-17-R-2981, therefore, it cannot be said that the insured vehicle is used for carrying passengers. He further submits that looking to the facts of the case, the use of insured vehicle ought to [2025:RJ-JP:28957] (4 of 5) [CMA-4346/2007] have been considered as related to agricultural work only, accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal whereby, the Insurance Company has been exonerated and liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the non- claimant/appellants may be set aside and the Insurance Company be held liable to pay the compensation.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents opposes the said submissions and submits that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. He further submits that the driver of the insured vehicle was not having license, and the insured vehicle was used for carrying passengers despite being registered for agricultural purposes, therefore due to violation of insurance policy, learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company for paying compensation and fastened the liability upon the non-claimant/appellants to pay compensation to the claimant/respondents, therefore, the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for any interference, accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.

14. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

15. From the record of the case, it is revealed that the insured vehicle was registered for agricultural purposes only and from the facts of the case, it is revealed that the deceased was travelling in the insured vehicle as a passenger after paying the necessary fare, the law regarding travelling in goods vehicle either as [2025:RJ-JP:28957] (5 of 5) [CMA-4346/2007] gratuitous passenger or the passenger travelling after payment as well as the questions involved in the present appeal are no more res integra in view of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy reported in 2003 (2) SCC 339 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani reported in 2001 (6) SCC 724, whereby it was settled that if the insured vehicle is used for a different purpose than what is mentioned in the registration certificate, it would amount to violation of the insurance policy. In the present case, the insured vehicle was registered for agricultural purposes, whereas the same was used for carrying passengers.

16. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from paying compensation in view of this aforesaid violation of the insurance policy, and the said liability has rightly been fastened upon the non-claimant/appellants.

17. That in view of clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the arguments of the learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellants can't be accepted.

18. Further a bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that the impugned award is perfectly just and proper, and does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court, therefore, the present appeal sans merit and deserves to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

20. All the pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. DEEPA-61 (MANEESH SHARMA),J