NAGASHETTY versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 17-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NAGASHETTY 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
AUGUST 17, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles Act. 1988-Ss.2(14), (44), (46) and (47) and 10(2)-
Compensation-Payment of-Insurance Company-liability of-Licence to 
drive tractor with attached trailer-Accident-Insurance Policy Charging 
C additional premium for trailer-Held, Insurance Company liable-Person 
having valid driving licence of a vehicle does not become disabled to drive 
that vehicle merely because a trailer was attached to that. 
Insurance Policy-Interpretation of-Tractor-Insurance of-Extra 
D premium for trailer-Driver-Restriction on transporting goods as a learner-
licence for tractor with attached trailer-Accident-Compensation-Payment 
of-Insurance Company-Denial to pay-Held, policy contemplates that 
tr~ctor could be used for carriage of goods-Hence Insurance Company 
liable. 
E 
The legal heirs of deceased who had died in an accident involving 
tractor with an attached trailer (filled with stones) filed a claim for 
compensation. It was allowed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, directing 
the Respondent Insurance Company to pay the full amount. 
The Insurance Company preferred an appeal before High Court on the 
F ground that though the Insurance Policy covered the tractor with trailer 
attached to it, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation 
since the driver was driving the tractor without a valid licence as he was 
issued licence to drive only a tractor, whereas he was driving the tractor with 
a trailer attached to it High Court allowed the appei!I holding that the owner 
alone was liable to pay the entire amount. Since the driver who was having 
G licence to drive a tractor, was disqualified to drive the tractor, as trailer was 
attached to it. 
Against the High Court's order, appeal was filed in this Court. During 
pendency of the appeal, appellant made payment to the legal representatives 
H of the deceased. 
656 
"'$'-
NAGASHETTY v. UNITED !NIDA INSURANCE CO. [Y ARIAVA, J.] 657 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD : 1. High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a 
\ 
person having valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified 
to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it. A person having a valid 
driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become 
disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. B 
If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he 
continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if 
a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. [660-A, B] 
2. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for 
transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor C 
could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor b.Y itself could not carry 
goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the 
extra premium for trailer was charged. [660-Fl 
In view of the fact that appellants had already made payment, the Court D 
observed that they were entitled to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company. 
1661-AJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5380-5381 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.99, 22.8.2000 of the Karnataka 
High Court in M.F.A. No. 4707/98, R.P. No. 132 of2000. 
G.V. Chandrashekhar and P.P. Singh for the Appellant. 
S.C. Sharda and Arun K. Sinha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. N. V ARIA VA, J. Leave granted. 
Heard parties. 
These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 17th September, 1999 
passed by the High Court of Karnataka and a Judgment dated 22nd August, 
2000 by which a Review Petition was dismissed. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 
E 
F 
G 
H 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
On 4th December, 1995 at about 2.30 p.m. one Chand Pasha and 
Moinuddin were returning to the village Halbarga from village Ashtoor. While 
they were walking on the road a tractor bearing No.KA-39/M-3 came from the 
direction of Bidar. On seeing the tractor Chand Pasha raised his hand to stop 
/ 
it as there was a ditch. However the driver could not control the tractor and 
B it dashed against these two persons. As a result of this Chand Pasha died 
on the spot. 
The legal representatives of deceased Chand Pasha lodged a claim 
Petition No.12 of 1996 before the Additional MA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.