SHAMBHU BAG Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was a labour working under the respondent no. 2 being the owner of the tractor having Registration No. WB-41a/4497. He used to earn Rs. 2,100. 00 per month. On July 13, 2002 at about 12:30 he was proceeding towards Bankura More travelling by the said tractor. The said tractor overturned sustaining severe injury to the appellant. Ultimately he lost his left leg which was amputated. He was admitted in Burdwan Hospital. After his discharge from the Hospital he took medical treatment from the Outdoor Department of the Hospital. He claimed that he incurred expense to the extent of Rs. 30,000. 00-35,000. 00 on account of medical treatment. During cross-examination the appellant deposed that a trailer was attached to the tractor at the time of accident. The Insurance Company denied their liability on the ground that the trailer did not have insurance cover. The Tribunal ultimately assessed the compensation and directed the owner to pay the same by absolving the insurance Company of any liability. The Tribunal held that the trailer did not have insurance. Hence, the appellant was not entitled to any compensation from the insurance Company.

(2.) BEING aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned counsel contended that the insurance policy was not disclosed before the Tribunal. Hence the Tribunal should not have absolved the Insurance Company of its liability without looking into the insurance policy and considering its terms and conditions. Mr. Banik contended that there was no justification for the Tribunal to absolve the Insurance Company of its liability.

(3.) OPPOSING the appeal Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company contended that the trailer was not insured with the Insurance Company. Hence, the injury caused to the appellant due to over-turn of the trailer could not attract any compensation from the Insurance Company. He further contended, in any event the vehicle was used for co-lateral purpose and not agricultural purpose. Hence, the risk was not covered. He further contended that the tractor and/or trailer are goods vehicle, used for agricultural purpose. The appellant was a gratuitous passenger. Hence, the Insurance Company had no liability on that score. Mr. Singh lastly contended that the Tribunal ultimately held the owner responsible for payment of compensation. Owner accepted the decision by not preferring any appeal. Hence, such liability could not be shifted at the instance of the appellant. To support their contentions the parties cited the following decisions :-