LexORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LID. versus BRIJ MOHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LID.
A
v.
BRIJ MOHAN AND ORS.
MAY 15. 2007
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU. JJ.]
B
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-s. 147-Third Party risk-Liability of
insurer-Goods carriage-Earth dug up, carried in a trolley attached to
tractor, to brick klin-Labourer travelling in a trolley suffered grievous
injuries on negligent driving by driver-{;ompensation-.:.Award of. against C
insurer-Held: Tractor was insured for carrying out agricultural work and
tractor not used for the same-Claimant neither owner nor driver but merely
passenger travelling on the trolley thus, claim not sustainable-However
being poor labourer and having suffered grievous injuries, compensation
awarded less-Thus, award lo be satisfied by insurance company which ii D
could realise from owner of the tractor and trolley.
First respondent-labourer was engaged in digging earth from field.
Earth dug was loaded on trolley attached to the tractor and was carried to the
brick klin. Respondent was sitting on the earth loaded on the trolley and the
driver allegedly drove the tractor rashly and negligently and as a result the E
first respondent slipped from the trolley and came under the ~heels thereof
and suffered grievous injuries. The tractor was insured only for the purpose
of carrying out agricultural work. Respondent filed a claim petition. Insurance
Company contended that only tractor alone was insured and it was not used
for agricultural purposes and that the premium was only paid for driver of F
the tractor. MACT awarded compensation in favour of the respondent. High
Court dismissed the appeal of the Insurance Company. Hence, the present
appeal
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. It does not appear that the contention of the appellant that
the trolley was not insured had been gone into by the Tribunal. There is
nothing on records to show that the owner of the tractor had produced any
insurance cover in respect of the trolley. The tractor was insured only for
the purpose of carrying out agricultural works. The representative of the
G
843
II
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2007] 6 S.C.R.
A Insurance Company on cross-examination merely accepted the suggestion that
....._ ..
cutting the earth and levelling the field with earth would be an agricultural
work but respondent no.I himself categorically stated in his claim petition
before the Tribunal stating that the earth had been dug and was being carried
in the trolley to the brick-klin. Evidently the earth was meant to be used only
B
for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. Digging of earth for the purpose of
manufacture of brick-klin indisputably cannot amount to carrying out of the
agricultural work. !Para 8] 1846-G, H; 847-A·BI
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma & Ors .. 12004] 8 SCC
697, referred to.
fo.
c
t .2. Respondent was neither the owner of the tractor nor the driver but
was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor.
Therefore, his claim petition, could not have been allowed. However, respondent
no. I is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries and had become
disabled to a great extent The amount of compensation awarded in his favour
D appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned situation, although the
other contentions of the respondent are rejected, extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article I 42 of the Constitution oflndia is exercised so as to direct that
the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realize
the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not
E
be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the
amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act
(Paras 10 and I31 [848-C; 85I-E-F)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 223;
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subhayamma and Ors., (2005) I2
F SCC 243; United India Insurance Co Ltd., Shim/av. Tilak Singh, [2006) 4
SCC 404; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur & Ors., [2004) 2 SCC
I; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 4 SCALE 36;
Oriental Insurance Company Ltdv. Meena Variyal Ors., (2007) 5 SCALE 269
.,,.
and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., [2006) 4 SCC
250, referred to.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2532 of2007.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.01.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature ofRajasthan at Jaipur BExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.