IN THE HI 119 Vicky Indra Devi CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA of the Eicher (hereinafter dated 02.08 Panipat (here of 2023 filed 1988 (herein been made l claimants. 2. Award and s pay the com claim petitio asserted tha E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. *** UPTA, J. Present appeal has been fi icher Tractor (Blue Colour) bearing fter referred to as ‘the offending 2.08.2024 passed by the Motor (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribu filed under Sections 166 and 140 reinafter referred to as “the Act”) de liable for payment of compensa Learned counsel for the ap nd submits that the appellant has compensation amount as, neither tition filed by the claimants/respon that the deceased was sitting on th D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4855-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate en filed by the driver-cum-owner ing registration No.HR-60F-1721 ing vehicle’) against the Award tor Accidents, Claims Tribunal, Tribunal”), in MACT Case No.122 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ct”), whereby the appellant has nsation of Rs.17,55,000/- to the e appellant assails the impugned has been wrongly held liable to her in the FIR (Ex.P3) nor in the spondents No.1 to 4 has it been n the mudguard of the offending 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vehicle whic even as per occurrence nowhere sta tractor. On t law/decease when he me wrongly imp Company/re compensatio misjoinder a limitation. Th 3. place on 23. Insurance Co valid w.e.f. 2 of alleged a Company i.e presumed th policy, even compensatio can recover learned cou which was being driven by the ap per the statement made by the ce namely one Parkash/author of stated that the deceased was sitt On the contrary, he has stated in eased Om Parkash had started to c met with the accident. Therefor imposed the liability upon the appe y/respondent No.4 has been wrong sation. It is further submitted that er and non-joinder of necessary There is delay of one day in regist It is further submitted tha 23.04.2023 and the tractor in qu e Company/ respondent No.5 here .f. 25.07.2022 to midnight on 24.07 d accident, the tractor was fully y i.e. respondent No.5. Even if for d that the appellant has violated th even then the insurance comp sation amount at first instance and ver the same from the appellant. counsel relies upon judgments of appellant. It is submitted that the alleged eyewitness of the r of the FIR (Ex.P3), it has been sitting on the mudguard of the in the FIR that his brother-in- to climb down from the tractor efore, the learned Tribunal has appellant. As such, the Insurance rongly held not liable to pay the hat the claim petition is bad for sary parties; and is barred by gistration of the FIR. that the alleged accident took question was insured with the erein. The insurance policy was 4.07.2023. Therefore, on the day ully insured with the Insurance for the sake of argument, it is d the terms and condition of the mpany is liable to pay the and then the insurance company In support of this contention, of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “Manuara K Doc ID # 831 # 1181090; Devi & Othe 4. 5. perused the 6. the basis of deceased-Om motor vehicu and neglige registration driven by the deceased ex statement o registered un against the before the le the decease and when he appellant sud to which the ra Khatun & Others Vs. Rajesh Kr. 831243; “Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra & A 90; and “Bajaj Allianz General Ins thers” Law Finder Doc ID # 980758 No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou the case file in great detail. Brief facts of the case are of pleadings and evidence adduc Om Parkash had died due to the ehicular accident that took place on ligent driving of the Eicher Tra ion No.HR-60F-1721/ the offendin the appellant. The accident took p d expired on 24.04.2023; wherea nt of the eyewitness Prakash, FIR n d under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC the appellant. A certified copy of he learned Tribunal as Ex. P2. In the ased Om Prakash was sitting on t n he had started to climb down fro t suddenly moved the tractor in has the deceased got hit by the tracto Kr. Singh & Others” Law Finder a & Another” Law Finder Doc ID l Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kailash 758. aised on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and are that the learned Tribunal on duced before it concluded that the injuries suffered by him in a e on 23.04.2023 due to the rash Tractor (Blue Colour) bearing nding vehicle being owned and ok place on 23.04.2023 and the ereafter, on the basis of the IR no. 529 dated 24.4.2023 was IPC at Police Station City Panipat of the said FIR was produced the said FIR, it was asserted that on the mudguard of the tractor from the offending vehicle, the haste in a negligent manner due actor and fell down on the road. 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Subsequentl being: widow In para 24 o deceased wa suddenly mo which decea 7. learned Tribu Tribunal as n present case respondent n respondent been mention case and fals collusion with been falsely no.1 may ki petition may 8. following issu ently the present claim petition wa idow, one son and two daughters o 24 of the claim petition, it has be d was climbing down from the tract moved the tractor in haste and ceased got hit by the tractor and fe Upon notice, the appel Tribunal. The pleaded case of the a as noted in para 12 of the impugne case, the most vehemence of th ent no.2 that neither the acciden ent no.1 nor the name of driver or ntioned in the complaint and FIR. Th false case has been got registered a with the claimants- petitioners and sely implicated in thepresent case a y kindly be decided in favourof t may kindly be dismissed.” On the basis of the ple g issues were framed by the learned “1. Whether the accident in quest of 0m Parkash Rajbhar son of Sh rash and negligent driving of was filed by the four claimants rs of the deceased Om Prakash. s been asserted that when the tractor then the driver/appellant nd in negligent manner due to d fell down on the road. ppellant appeared before the he appellant before the learned ugned Award was that: “...In the f the learned counsel for the ident has been caused by the er or number of the vehicle has R. The present case is hit and run red against the respondent no. in s and the police. The vehicle has ase and thus, prayed that issue rof the respondents and claim pleadings of the parties, the ned Tribunal: - question resulting into the death of Shri Somai took place due to of offending Tractor bearing 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9. claim petitio decided in fa of in favour Resultantly, claimants. Th per month. T was correctly deduction w further gran Rs.15,000/- awarded alo the petition 10. liability of pa registration no.HR-60F-1721 by re OPP. 2. If issue no.1 is proved in af compensation, the petitioners Ind to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the vehicle in que violation of the terms and condit if so, to what effect? OPR2 4. Relief.” On the basis of the evide tition of the claimants was partl in favour of the claimants; and Issu our of the claimants and against tly, compensation in the following s. The income of the deceased was . The deceased was 44 years of a ectly applied; and future prospects n was made as there were 4 claim granted spousal consortium of Rs -. Accordingly total compensat along with interest of 7.5% per an ion till realisation. It has been argued on b f payment of the above compensat by respondent no.1, as alleged? n affirmative, what amount of rs Indra Devi & Ors. are entitled question was being driven in nditions of the insurance policy, vidence led by the parties, the artly allowed. Issue no. 1 was Issues no.2 and 3were disposed inst the appellant, respectively. ing manner was awarded to the was assessed to be Rs.13,375/- of age, as such, multiplier of 14 ects of 25% were awarded. 1/4th claimants. The learned Tribunal f Rs.40,000/-; loss of estate of nsation of Rs.17,55,000/- was r annum from the date of filing n behalf of the appellant that nsation has been wrongly affixed 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document upon the ap the offendin argument of the same is of the claim deceased wa drove the s deceased fe suffered mu 24.04.2023. strengthened 11. liability upon account the Parkash/PW1 tractor/offen caused. Even the appellan he was foun mortem repo recorded to photocopy o as per which e appellant as the deceased was no nding vehicle when the accident to t of the appellant is liable to be reje e is contrary to the evidence on rec laimants as well as the eyewitness d was alighting from the offending e same in a hasty and negligent fell down and was hit by the tr multiple grievous injuries to 23. The case as put forth by th ened by his testimony as PW1 and h While passing the impugn upon the appellant, the learned T the FIR (Ex.P2) which was registere PW1, in which he has specifically m ffending vehicle and the manner Even the report under Section 173 llant was joined in the investigation found to be involved in the present report (Ex.P3) and death report (Ex to be roadside accident. The ld. T py of the Registration Certificate of hich seating capacity of the tracto s not sitting on the mudguard of t took place. However, the said rejected in view of the fact that record. It is the consistent case ness/complainant/PW1 that the ding vehicle when the appellant ent manner due to which the e tractor due to which he had to which he succumbed on y the eyewitness was further nd his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. pugned Award and affixing the ed Tribunal has also taken into tered on the statement made by lly mentioned the number of the ner in which the accident was 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P1) indicates that ation on 11.05.2023 upon which sent case. Even as per the post- t (Ex.P4) cause of the death was ld. Tribunal also considered the e of the offending vehicle Ex. R1, actor was of one person viz the 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document driver, and purpose. 12. had failed to the claimant to show tha appellant be his false imp placing relia Limited Vs. S on 13.07.20 evidence on implicated in under: - nd the tractor was meant to be Moreover, it is imperative d to appear in the witness box to re ants. Even no documentary eviden that any complaint or applicatio t before the Investigating Agencies implication in the matter. As such reliance upon judgment in “The O Vs. Smt. Chubhi Hansda & Others” 7.2022 Law Finder Doc ID # 20266 on the file to prove that the respo ed in this case.”. Relevant part of “24. It was argued by learned that respondent no.2-Insurance C the compensation amount to the Om Parkash Rajbhar was sitting tractor which is revealed from the (eyewitness/author of FIR) and th driver. and not for other person capacity of the tractor is only for o such the Insurance Company shou occurrence, which takes place o passengers. In this regard, he h case titled The Oriental Insuran be used only for agriculture ve to note that the appellant to rebut the claim of the case of idence was filed by the appellant ation had been moved by the cies or any police authority for such, the learned Tribunal while e Oriental Insurance Company ers” FAO No.4890-2017 decided 026691, held that “...there is no espondent No.1 has been falsely t of the impugned Award is as ed counsel for respondent no.2 ce Company is not liable to pay o the claimants as the deceased itting on the mudguard of the the testimony of PW1- Parkash d the tractor was insured for the rson/passenger and the seating for one person, i.e. driver and as should not be made liable for an ce on a vehicle not meant for he has drawn his support from urance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwanti & 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13. that the dec accident as question of deceased wo seating capa driver. No do Ors. 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 110/111 by learned counsel for responden been meant for agriculture purp Registration Certificate Ex.R1, as that it is meant for one person/ Policy Ex.R3/R4 are on the file wh the tractor has been insured for when the tractor is meant to be u and not for commercial use then not liable to pay the amount o present case, the deceased was t the tractor and when he was alig he came under the tyre of the succumbed to the injuries and not liable to pay the amount of co he has drawn support from case t Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma & Ors. 2 prayed that the liability can 1 no.1 being the driver and owner o the insurance company be exoner The argument of the learn deceased was not sitting on the as he was alighting from the trac of alighting from the tractor w d would be sitting on the tractor. apacity of the offending tractor is fo o doubt on the date of accident 23.4 /111 P&H. It was further argued ndent no.2 that the tractor has purpose which is revealed from , as in the RC, it is mentioned son/one seat and the Insurance le which go to show this fact that for the agriculture purpose. So, be used for agriculture purpose then the Insurance Company is unt of compensation as in the as the gratuitous passenger on s alighting from the tractor then the tractor and due to this, he so the insurance company is of compensation. In this regard, ase titled National Insurance Co. rs. 2005(1) LJR 145/146 SC and 1 be fastened upon respondent ner of the vehicle in question and onerated.”. earned counsel for the appellant the tractor at the time of the tractor is gravely misplaced as r would arise only when the or. As already noted above, the is for only one person that is the 23.4.2023, the offending vehicle 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document was insured 25.07.2022 t liability of re to the driver other person As already d passenger o alleged incid Tribunal tha compensatio learned Tribu fa ured with respondent no.5 which 22 till midnight of 24.07.2023. It i f respondent No.5/Insurance Comp river subject to the policy terms an son other than the driver, travelli dy demonstrated above the decease er on the offending vehicle and w incident. As such, it has been co that the respondent No.5 wa sation to the claimants. Relevant Tribunal are as under:- “27. In the present case, it is adm Om Parkash Rajbhar was sitting tractor and when he was alighti fateful day, i.e. 23.4.2021 at arou Chowk, Panipat then he fell down under the tyre of the tractor bea 1721 and the tractor was driven time and Om Parkash Rajbha grievous injuries and he also succu the complainant/eyewitness Park box as PW1 then in the cross-exa mentioned that his brother-in- mudguard of the tractor who w side i.e. coming from Delhi side. W was to get down from the trac tractor driver suddenly moved his hich was valid for the period It is no longer res integra that ompany would be restricted only s and conditions and not to any velling on the offending vehicle. eased was sitting as a gratuitous d was alighting at the time of correctly held by the learned was not liable to pay the vant findings returned by the admitted fact that the deceased itting on the mudguard of the lighting from the tractor on the around 10.30 P.M. near Sanjay down from the tractor and came bearing registration no.HR-60F- iven by respondent no.1 at that ajbhar sustained multiple and succumbed to the injuries. When Parkash appeared in the witness examination, he has specifically -law (Jija) was sitting on the ho was coming towards Karnal de. When his brother-in-law (Jija) tractor, in the meantime, the d his tractor and his brother-in- 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo law (Jija) fell down on the road. statement of the eyewitness/ prove this fact that the dec mudguard of the tractor and w tractor then he fell down and c tractor. 28. It is settled proposition of law for the driver and not for any othe the seating capacity of the trac driver. Om Parkash Rajbhar (sin mudguard fell down on the grou injuries on his person and succu seating capacity of the tractor revealed from Registration Cer mentioned that the RC is for purpose and the seating capac Meaning thereby, there were two driver of the tractor, i.e. Vicky (re deceased Om Parkash Rajbhar at when the tractor was meant fo breach of terms and conditions was sitting on the tractor on his o insured for the driver and not passenger. As the premium for th paid was for the driver only. Th Registration Certificate Ex.Rl show of the tractor of one person i.e. plain logic that when the seating one person, i.e. driver, the other covered under the insurance polic oad. Meaning thereby, the own ss/complainant PW1-Parkash deceased was sitting on the nd when he alighted from the nd came under the tyre of the law that the tractor was insured other person, i.e. passenger and tractor is only one person, i.e. (since deceased) sitting on the ground and sustained grievous succumbed to the injuries. The ctor was one. As this fact is Certificate Ex.R1, where it is for tractor i.e. for agriculture apacity is only of one person. two persons on the tractor, one y (respondent no.1) and other is r at the time of the accident. So, nt for one person then there is ons of the policy. The deceased his own risk and the tractor was not for any other person, i.e. or the insurance policy has been y. The perusal of photocopy of shows that the seating capacity n i.e. the driver. It is, therefore, ating capacity of a tractor is for other person sitting on it, is not policy. There is breach of terms 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and conditions of the policy a should not be made liable for a place on a vehicle not meant fo breach in the terms and con insurance company should be Reliance has been drawn in this Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Is (Civil) 110/111 P&H, wherein o Punjab & Haryana has held as und 'Deceased was sitting o Deceased fell down and di for the driver and person/passenger, as the driver only. The seating ca person, i.e. driver. The insu be made liable for an occ on a vehicle not meant for Further, I draw my support f Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinn 145/146 SC, wherein, the Hon’ble under: 'The tractor is meant to purposes and the insurer travelling in the tractor w tractor is not a good carrie agricultural purposes, not was held that the insuran pay the compensation.' The supra authorities are appli present case. In the present case cy and the insurance company for an occurrence, which takes nt for passengers. Since there is conditions of the policy, the be absolved of its liability. this regard in case titled The Vs. Ishwanti & Ors. 2013(1) RCR ein our Hon'ble High Court of s under:- ng on mudguard of tractor. nd died. The tractor was insured and not for any other the premium paid was for the g capacity of a tactor is for one e insurance company should not occurrence, which takes place t for passengers' ort from case titled National hinnamma & Ors. 2005(1) LJR ble Apex Court has observed as t to be used for agricultural surer-liability, owner of goods tor with goods i.e. vegetables, arrier, it is meant to be used for , not for commercial use and it urance company is not liable to applicable on the facts of the case, there is sufficient evidence 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fo 14. Chhattisgarh & Others” La fo 15. in the first in have been compensatio amount coul is at the disc in the file in the shape of RC Ex.R1 that the tractor was insured for on for agriculture purpose only. As s is not liable to pay the amount of Issue stand disposed of accordingl Reference may be mad garh High Court in “Jagdish Prasad s” Law Finder Doc ID # 2333093, wh “A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sect Breach of policy conditions - deceased was sitting in the trac capacity in the tractor and n insurance policy taken by the own in the tractor and fastened liabi offending vehicle - Offending vehi for the agriculture purpose and passenger - Therefore, the lea exonerated the Insurance Compa compensation.” It has also been argued on rst instance, the respondent No.5/I een made liable or directed t sation; and subsequently a suit for could have been filed against the a discretion of the learned Tribunal. Page 12 of 13 Ex.R1, insurance policy Ex.R3/R4 for one person and it was insured As such, the insurance company t of compensation. dingly.” made to a judgment of the sad Soni Vs. Smt. Nirmala Sahu wherein it has been held that: - Section 147 Liability of insurer - At the time of accident, the tractor and there is no sitting d no risk covered under the owner for the passenger sitting liability upon the owner of the vehicle in this case was ensured and not for carrying goods or learned Tribunal has rightly ompany from its liability to pay d on behalf of the appellant that .5/Insurance Company ought to d to make payment of the t for recovery of compensation, e appellant. However, the same al. 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16. to interfere i dismissed. 17. 09.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo In view of the above facts, ere in the impugned Award. Presen Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No cts, I find no ground is made out esent appeal accordingly stands if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 13 SUNENA 2025.01.13 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document