THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SANTOSH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal brought by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer against the award dated 14.1.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri (for short, "the Tribunal") vide which, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,31,900/ -, the responsibility to pay the compensation has been fixed on the appellant. The offending vehicle, i.e., tractor bearing No. HR -02J -3734 was insured with the appellant at the relevant point. However, the liability is sought to be evaded for the reason that the deceased was unauthorized person travelling on the tractor and he was not covered by the insurance policy.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has contended that the deceased Balbir Singh was travelling on the tractor, a vehicle which was not meant for carrying passengers.. According to him, this vehicle was not insured for carrying passengers and, therefore, the deceased had not been covered by the insurance policy and, so, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. He has cited before me a decision of a coordinate Bench of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramji Lal and others : 2012 A.C.J. 640. The question there was regarding passenger risk and liability of the insurance company. The passenger was travelling on mudguard of the tractor and he was thrown off and killed in the accident. Insurance company sought to evade its liability on the ground that the tractor was not meant for carrying passengers and had no seating capacity except that of its driver and there was no insurance cover for a person sitting on mudguard of the tractor. It was held that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening liability on the insurance company.

(3.) IT is true that learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the trolley attached to the tractor. However, that finding is not sustainable because that finding is based on evidence which is contrary to the very pleadings in the petition. It is unquestionable as a preposition of law that any evidence which is beyond the pleadings cannot be taken into consideration. In the unnumbered paragraph of the claim petition detailing the cause of accident with particular description, it has been clearly mentioned that the deceased was sitting with respondent No. 2 on the said tractor. It would clearly prove that the deceased was travelling on the tractor and not on the trolley. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal was not justified in reaching the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the trolley instead of the tractor. So, as the deceased was travelling on the tractor itself, the insurance company cannot be held responsible for indemnifying the insured in the amount of the award. The appeal is, therefore, allowed exonerating the appellant of its liability in this case.