[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 [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 [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 [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. [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 [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 [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