Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ramesh Chand And Others vs Shambhu Dayal And Another … on 18 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16502]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 426/2012
1. Ramesh Chand S/o Ghasi Lal, aged about 52 years, R/o
Palayata, Tehsil Mangrole, District Baran Raj.
2. Shopal S/o Ghasi Lal,
3. Dev Karan S/o Ghasi Lal,
4. Narbadi Bai W/o Ghasi Lal, (Deceased)
Appellant No.2 to 4 all are residents of Jarga, Tehsil- Khanpur,
District Jhalawar Raj.
--Non-Claimant/Appellants
Versus
1. Shambhu Dayal S/o Chaturbhuj, R/o Bhagwanpura, Tehsil
Khanpur, District Jhalawar Raj.
.......Claimant/Respondent
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Near Police
Line Circle, Jhalawar Raj.
—Non-claimant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal with
Ms. Ritu Bansal (for respondent No.2)
Mr. Rakesh Saini on behalf of
Mr. Sanjay Mehrish (for respondent No.1)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
18/04/2026
1. This appeal, filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by
the driver and owners, lays challenge to the judgment and award dated
07.10.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
Jhalawar (for short ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 62/2008, whereby the
claim petition filed by the respondent No.1-claimant (for short
‘claimant’) was partly allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are
that the claimant filed a claim petition against the appellants and the
respondent No.2 (for short ‘Insurance Company’) before the learned
Tribunal. It was averred in the claim petition that on 17.03.2006, at
around 4:30 pm, the appellant No.1 (driver of offending vehicle) took
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16502] (2 of 7) [CMA-426/2012]
the claimant to thresh coriander as a labourer, on a tractor bearing
Registration No. RJ-17-R-2539 with which a thresher was attached. At
the farm ridge belonging to Ramavtar-Giriraj, the thresher overturned
due to the rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 1. As a result of
which, the claimant fell beneath the thresher and sustained grievous
injuries, including a fracture of the backbone. The claimant claimed a
total sum of Rs.38,26,700/- as compensation under various heads
jointly and severally from appellant No.1, appellant Nos. 2 to 4 (owners
of offending vehicle) and the Insurance Company.
3. The appellants, who were arrayed as non-claimant Nos. 1 to 4
before the learned Tribunal, filed a joint written statement in response
to the claim petition, denying their liability. It was denied that the
accident was caused by the offending vehicle and further denied that
the claimant was employed as a labourer by them. It was also
contended that, as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance
Company, the liability to pay any compensation, if any, rested with the
Insurance Company.
4. The Insurance Company also filed written statement, inter-alia,
raising objections that the claimant was travelling in an unauthorised
manner, seated on bags of coriander seeds on the thresher. It was
further contended that, at the time of the accident, the offending
vehicle was being used for hire or reward, constituting fundamental
breach of the insurance policy conditions, accordingly, denied its liability
to pay compensation.
5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed
four issues. The claimant examined three witnesses namely Shambhu
Dayal (AW-1), Kishan Lal (AW-2) and Bishan Lal (AW-3) and produced
documents from Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-64. The Insurance Company
examined one witness namely Mahesh Roopchandani (NAW-1) and
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16502] (3 of 7) [CMA-426/2012]
produced one document as Exhibit NA-1. The appellants also examined
two witnesses namely Ramesh Chand (NAW-2) and Giriraj (NAW-3).
6. After considering the submissions of the parties and evaluating
the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a sum of Rs.3,50,100/- in favour of the claimants,
alongwith interest @8% from the date of filing of claim petition,
however, exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that there
was breach of the conditions of the insurance policy.
7. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned
judgment and award, submitted that the offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident. It was further submitted that the claimant was
not employed as a labourer by the appellants. Learned counsel also
submitted that, since the thresher formed part of the tractor and was
not required to be separately registered, the liability to pay
compensation to the claimant rested with the Insurance Company.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment passed in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meera, reported in 2009
(3) CDR 1294 (Raj.).
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company
supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the claimant was travelling in
an unauthorised manner, while sitting on bags of coriander seeds on the
thresher. It was contended that since no premium had been paid to
cover passenger’s risk, therefore, claimant’s risk was not covered under
the insurance policy. It was further contended that the offending vehicle
was being used for hire or reward, which constituted fundamental
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In this
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16502] (4 of 7) [CMA-426/2012]
regard and to substantiate the contentions made in so far, learned
counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
i. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Brij Mohan, reported in
(2007) 7 SCC 56;
ii. Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude since
deceased through his LRs. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 5459-5460
of 2023, decided on 28.08.2023.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.
11. The pleaded case of the claimant is that on 17.03.2006, at about
4:30 pm, appellant No.1 took the claimant on a tractor with which a
thresher was attached. At the farm ridge belonging to Ramavtar-Giriraj,
due to the rash and negligent driving of appellant No.1, thresher
overturned and as a consequence, the claimant fell beneath the
thresher and sustained grievous injuries.
12. The claimant who examined himself as AW-1, deposed in support
of the averments made in the claim petition. In his cross-examination,
he admitted that he was sitting on bags of coriander seeds placed on
the thresher attached to the offending tractor. His testimony was
corroborated by that of Bishan Lal (AW-3), who stated that on
17.03.2006, he, along with other labourers, had gone to the field of
Giriraj Meena for threshing coriander and the claimant had also come
who was brought by driver Ramesh. He further stated that after
threshing one heap, they were going to thresh second heap of coriander
and due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No.1, thresher
overturned and as a consequence, the claimant fell beneath the
thresher and sustained grievous injuries.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16502] (5 of 7) [CMA-426/2012]
12.1 It is also relevant to note that the police, after investigation, filed
the charge-sheet against the appellant No.1 and found the offences
proved against him under sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.
12.2 In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, in deciding the
issue pertaining to occurrence of accident due to the negligent driving
of offending vehicle by the appellant No.1, is based on the factual
matrix of the case and upon a proper appreciation of the evidence led
by the parties. The same does not warrant any interference.
13. In so far as the breach of the terms of the insurance policy and
the consequent exoneration of the Insurance Company are concerned, a
perusal of the insurance policy (Ex.NA-1) reveals that it was a farmer’s
package insurance policy under which only the offending tractor was
insured. It is undisputed that neither the thresher nor any trailer
attached to the tractor was insured, nor any separate premium was paid
by the owner in respect thereof.
13.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan (supra) in
para 10, has held as under:-
“10. Furthermore, the respondent was not the owner of
the tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was
merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to
the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have
been allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani [New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 493] wherein the earlier decision of this Court in
New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC
237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] was overruled. In Asha Rani
[New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC
223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] it was, inter alia, held: (SCC p.
235, paras 25-27)“25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia,
prescribes compulsory coverage against the
death of or bodily injury to any passenger of
‘public service vehicle’. Proviso appended
thereto categorically states that compulsory
coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of
public service vehicle and employees carried in(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16502] (6 of 7) [CMA-426/2012]a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It
does not speak of any passenger in a ‘goods
carriage’.
26. In view of the changes in the relevant
provisions in the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the 1939
Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of
the words ‘any person’ must also be attributed
having regard to the context in which they have
been used i.e. ‘a third party’. Keeping in view
the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the
opinion that as the provisions thereof do not
enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a
vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any
passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the
insurers would not be liable therefor.
27. Furthermore, sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability
which may be incurred by the owner of a
vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to
any person or damage to any property of a third
party caused by or arising out of the use of the
vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii)
thereof deals with liability which may be
incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the
death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a
public service vehicle caused by or arising out of
the use of the vehicle in a public place.”
(See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi
Subbhayamma [(2005) 12 SCC 243] and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh [(2006) 4 SCC 404:
(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 344].)”
13.2 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhondubai
(supra) while dealing with the liability of insurance company held as
under:-
“In a matter of the present nature, the law is well settled
that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the
tractor as well as the trailer are required to be insured.
Therefore, in a normal circumstance, when the
appellant/claimant was travelling in the trailer which was
not insured, the liability on the Insurance Company
cannot be fastened and to that extent the High Court was
justified.”
13.3 It is also pertinent to mention here that, in the case in hand, the
claimant, in his cross-examination, admitted that he was sitting on bags
of coriander lying on the thresher. He further stated that there was no
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16502] (7 of 7) [CMA-426/2012]
seating space on the thresher and that the offending tractor had only
one seat, meant for the driver. In that view of the matter, the judgment
in Meera (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants,
is not applicable as in that case issue of unauthorised travel by the
deceased in the offending vehicle was not involved.
13.4 Additionally, as per the insurance policy, under the head of
‘limitation as to use’, it is clearly mentioned that the policy does not
cover the use for hire or reward whereas the offending vehicle was
being used on hire basis, which is established from the testimony of
NAW-3.
13.5 It is, therefore, evident that there was breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy, inasmuch as the claimant was
un-authorisedly travelling on the offending tractor while sitting on bags
placed on the thresher attached thereto, and further that the tractor
was being used for hire. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, justified in
exonerating the Insurance Company from paying compensation to the
claimant.
14. As a result of above discussion, this Court finds that the judgment
and award does not suffer from any legal infirmity, or perversity,
consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
15. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, stand
disposed of.
16. Office is directed to send back the record of the case to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J
TN/77
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:41:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 10:24:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
