1. Since all the appeals, Misc. Appeal Nos. 37, 38 and 43 of 1997, arise out of the same accident and a common award of the Tribunal, hence, they are being decided together by a common order.
2. The accident occurred on 29.4.1989 at about 10 o'clock. The deceased persons Sarkar Dulaiya and Balwan Singh and claimant Bitti bai along with others were going in a trolley attached to the tractor No. MPW 6856 for attending a religious function. It is alleged that near Bhandar Chiragaon triangular the vehicle turned turtle and as a result thereof persons sitting on the trolley sustained injuries. Sarkar Dulaiya, a woman aged about 70 years and Balwan Singh, a boy aged 14 years, succumbed to injuries and died whereas Bitti bai survived. Three different claim petitions were filed. Claim Case No. 107 of 1996 is in respect of death of Sarkar Dulaiya, Claim Case No. 108 of 1996 in respect of death of Balwan Singh and Claim Case No. 109 of 1996 is for the injuries sustained by Bittibai. The pleading regarding rash and negligent driving is same that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor which was being driven by Gangaram. Gangaram died during pendency of this appeal and his name was deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 27.6.1997. Claimants claimed compensation from opposite parties. During the trial before Claims Tribunal, opposite parties denied claim. Separate written statements were filed.
3. The claim was denied by the driver and owner of the tractor. The appellant insurance company also filed its written statement denying the claim. The defence taken by the insurance company is that (1) the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes (2) the trolley which was attached to the tractor was not insured and (3) the offending vehicle has been transferred by Siyaram to Bhagwandas without intimating the insurance company.
4. The Tribunal held that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. As such the defendants-respondents are liable. The pleas raised by insurance company appellant were negatived. In Claim Case No. 108 of 1996 a compensation of Rs. 60,000 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation on account of death of Balwan Singh. In Claim Case No. 109 of 1996 an award of Rs. 5,000 has been passed with interest from the date of application till realisation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In Claim Case No. 107 of 1996 an amount of Rs. 50,000 on account of death of Sarkar Dulaiya has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.
5. In Misc. Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 1997 the respondents have filed cross-objections.
6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, contended that the insurance company is not liable for the claim as there is breach of the policy. It was contended that the tractor was insured only for the agricultural purposes.
7. The insurance company has not adduced any evidence. The original policy of the insurance has also not been produced by the insurance company. In the record, however, there is photocopy of policy for the period from 27.2.1989 to 26.2.1990 but on this there is no endorsement that the vehicle is insured only for agricultural purposes. In this case thus, the defence taken by the insurance company has not been substantiated by leading any evidence and as such the contention advanced by Mr. Malhotra has, therefore, no force. Counsel for appellant placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Gyasobai v. Mahendra Singh Misc. Appeal No. 329 of 1995; decided on 9.1.1997. In that case the insurance company had adduced evidence and had also proved the policy which was marked as D-l. In the present case the insurer neither led any evidence nor filed any policy.
8. Mr. Malhotra then contended that the persons who sustained injuries and deceased were travelling in the trolley and the trolley was not insured and as such the claimants are not entitled for the claim. The respondents on the other hand contended that definition of motor vehicle is comprehensive so as to include trolley along with tractor.
9. Counsel for claimants-respondents relied on a Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritpalsingh 1996 (2) TAG 38 (P&H), para 6, wherein it has been held:
6. The definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' is comprehensive so as to include any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon the roads irrespective of the source of power and includes a trailer. 'Trailer' has been defined separately but is also included in the definition of the 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle'. Therefore, even though a trailer may be drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle and both the tractor and the trailer taken together would constitute a transport vehicle. If the trailer/trolley is not driven by a tractor, it does not become a vehicle and does not have any independent identity. The very fact that the trailer has been included within the definition of 'motor vehicle' clearly shows that the legislature did not intend to exclude a tractor together with a trailer/trolley from the definition of the 'motor vehicle' and in our opinion, the findings recorded by the Tribunal about the liability of the appellant do not suffer from any illegality.
Counsel for the respondents also relied on a decision in Sajid Mian v. Ganga 1990 ACJ 54 (Rajasthan), wherein it has been held that death of three persons sitting in the trolley attached to a tractor occurred when the trolley overturned due to the negligent driving of the tractor. It is held that trolley can only move with the help of the tractor and the tractor was insured. Para 10 is quoted below:
10. I see no force in the contention of Mr. Luhadiya that the trolley being not registered separately under the Act, no liability can be fixed on the insurance company. The trolley or trailer can only move with the help of the tractor. The tractor in question is already insured and the driver of the tractor in the present case is held to have driven the tractor at a high speed and negligently on account of which the trolley overturned and three persons died in the accident. Justice P. C. Jain also held in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Jaluria S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 342 of 1985; decided on 24.3.1987 that even if the accident may be said to have been caused by a trolley fixed with the tractor it will not make any difference. One of the contentions raised in the above case was that the accident was in fact caused by the trolley which was fixed with the tractor and the trolley was not insured with the insurance company.
10. In the opinion of this Court so far as this case is concerned, suffice it to say that insurance company has not adduced any evidence nor filed the insurance policy in support of its case. The document on record, which is a photocopy of the policy as discussed earlier, negatives the case of the insurance company and does not show that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes. This court has considered and relied on Sajid Mian v. Ganga 1990 ACJ 54 (Rajasthan), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhogabai; decided on 24.7.1995 and an L.P.A. No. 14 of 1996, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhogabai, which has been dismissed on 3.4.1997. The decision rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritpalsingh 1996 (2) TAG 38 (P&H), to the effect that tractor together with trolley included in the motor vehicle is pertinent and as such the finding recorded by the Tribunal about the liability of the appellant needs no interference.
11. So far as cross-objections in M.A. Nos. 37 and 38 of 1997 are concerned, the Claims Tribunal has properly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. Thus, cross-objections also fail and are dismissed. Mr. Malhotra stated that insurance company has deposited amount. It is made clear that the amount deposited by insurance company will be adjusted.
12. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeals preferred by the insurance company and the cross-objections, are dismissed. No order as to the cost. Appeals dismissed.
Comments