Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, the original respondent No.2, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 09.12.2011 passed by the learned District Judge-4 and Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in M.A.C.P. No.656/2004. The Tribunal had held the insurance company jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the tractor to pay compensation to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Madhav. The deceased met with an accident on 29.05.2004 while travelling on the mudguard of a tractor bearing No.MH-26/C-9288 and trolley bearing No.MH-26/C-8727, which was being driven to load fertilizer. He died due to the negligence of the tractor driver. The claimants, being the parents, filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The owner admitted that the deceased was working as a labour on his tractor but contended that the claim was exorbitant and that the vehicle was insured. The insurance company denied the age, occupation, and income of the deceased and alleged that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident as he was sitting on the head of the tractor. The insurance company also raised a statutory defence challenging its liability. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the tractor driver and that the insurance company failed to prove any breach of the terms of the policy. Consequently, it awarded compensation of Rs.2,85,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition. The insurance company appealed, primarily challenging its liability. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Tribunal's finding, noting that the insurance company did not lead any evidence to prove that the vehicle was used in violation of the policy conditions. The court observed that the insurance company had not examined any witness to show that the tractor was used for a purpose not permitted by the policy or that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the Award of the Tribunal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Gratuitous Passenger - Liability of Insurance Company - The insurance company challenged its liability to pay compensation for the death of a person travelling on the mudguard of a tractor, contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and thus not covered under the policy. The court held that the insurance company failed to prove any breach of the terms of the policy, and therefore, it is jointly and severally liable along with the owner to pay compensation. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Accident Claims - Burden of Proof - Breach of Policy Terms - The insurance company must prove that the vehicle was used in violation of the policy conditions. In this case, the insurance company did not lead any evidence to show that the tractor was used for a purpose not permitted by the policy or that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger. Hence, the Tribunal's finding of liability was upheld. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the death of a gratuitous passenger travelling on the mudguard of a tractor, when the insurance company failed to prove breach of policy terms.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Award passed by the learned District Judge-4 and Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in M.A.C.P. No.656/2004 dated 09.12.2011 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Gratuitous Passenger
- Breach of Policy Terms
- Burden of Proof on Insurance Company
- Vicarious Liability of Owner
