SATBIR AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJ DULARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by the driver and owner of the offending tractor, questioning the legality of the award passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, (for short 'the Tribunal) on 8.08.2008 whereby, respondent No. 3, the insurer has been exonerated from its responsibility of indemnifying the insured. A sum of Rs. 10,30,820/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. However, the liability to pay the compensation was held to be joint and several of respondents No. 1 and 2 only. The only reason for which the insurer is exonerated of its liability to pay the compensation is that the offending tractor was being used as goods carrier in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. It has been held that the tractor was insured for agricultural use and as the same has been used as goods carrier, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. In these circumstances, the facts are not required to be noticed in detail. Suffice it to say that on 8.01.2006, this tractor was there on the national highway at 9:30 pm and iron girders had been loaded in the same.

(2.) I have heard Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Randeep Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Ravinder Arora, learned counsel for Insurance Company, respondent No. 4. I have gone through the record. For the reasons given in para no. 23 of the award, it is concluded by learned Tribunal that the tractor which was insured for agricultural purpose was being used with trolley as goods carrier at the time of accident. At the outset, it may be mentioned that a trolley which is most of the times attached with the tractor for even agricultural purpose is not separately required to be insured. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 could not bring to my notice any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules framed thereunder or any decision laying down to that effect. On the other hand, the decision of the Hon'ble Andhara Pardesh High Court has been cited before me by learned counsel for the appellants in Gunti Devalah and others vs. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others,2004 1 RCR 178 where it has been laid down that no separate insurance cover is required for the trailer. Therefore, it could be said here itself that the trolley was also insured at the time of the accident alongwith the tractor.

(3.) From the fact that the tractor had iron girders loaded in the trolley and that it was there at the national highway at the time of accident, learned Tribunal has concluded that it was being put to a use contrary to the terms of the insurance policy. Agricultural purpose can not be taken in a very narrow sense. Even construction of rooms is required to carry out agricultural work in the agricultural land. Running a poultry farm is agricultural activity and girders may be required to put up sheds for that purpose. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has submitted that it was for the owner and driver to prove the purpose for which the girders were being carried in the tractor. He has further submitted that it has not been pleaded in the written statement by the owner and driver that the girders were being carried for agricultural purpose. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has failed to point out any plea taken by the insurer in written statement to the effect that the girders were being carried in the tractor trolley for any purpose other than the agricultural one. If the girders could only be used for non agricultural purpose, the inference that the tractor was being put to use in violation of the terms of the insurance policy could have been possible. There could be various uses of the girders and some of those uses can be said to be agricultural use. So by the mere facts that the tractor was carrying girders and that it was on national highway at the time of accident, it can not be concluded that it was being used as goods carrier contrary to the terms of the insurance policy.