LAWS(DLH)-2019-8-157

INDERPAL Vs. BIMLESH

Decided On August 01, 2019
INDERPAL Appellant
V/S
BIMLESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 23.05.2017 in which the appellants i.e. the owner and driver of the insured vehicle, have been made liable for payment of the said amount. The appellants rely upon the certificate/policy schedule of the insured vehicle i.e. a tractor bearing registration no. UP-14BH-4389. The appellants argue that it was identified as a commercial vehicle under Class D. In other words, the tractor, by itself, could be of no use unless it is attached with a trailer. Therefore, the trailer would be deemed to have been covered under the insurance policy. For the insurance company to argue otherwise, to avoid its liability for paying compensation, would be to mislead an unsuspecting customer, who wanted to have his vehicle insured, especially vehicle owners like the appellant no. 2, who is a farmer. The accident resulting in fatality involved a trailer attached to the tractor.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants relies upon (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Surinder & Ors., 2006 ACJ 1285; (ii) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sanjay Tyagi & Ors.,2014 SCCOnlineDel 1339; (iii) Rajinder Singh vs Santosh Devi,2014 SCCOnLineDel 3888, to contend that a tractor without a trailer is of no use and a trailer is deemed to be a part of it. However, the Court would note that in each of the aforementioned cases, the trailer, which was the cause of the accident, was attached to an agricultural vehicle, whereas in the present case, the learned counsel has already contended that the vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle. Logically, therefore, the afore-cited judgments, as distinguishable on facts, would not be applicable to the present case.

(3.) The learned counsel for the insurance company, strongly refutes the aforesaid arguments advanced by the appellants. He submits that none of these issues were raised before the learned MACT. Therefore, the appellants' argument that the trailer would be presumed to have been covered under the insurance policy is without basis.