SHIVRAJ versus RAJENDRA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 05-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
649
SHIVRAJ
v.
RAJENDRA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8278-8279 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166 – Compensation –
Appellant was travelling in a tractor when the driver of the tractor
driving in a rash and negligent manner dashed the tractor against
a big mud stone, consequent to which appellant sustained grievous
injuries – Claim petition u/s.166 – Tribunal held that claim of
appellant was covered by the insurance policy and awarded
compensation of Rs.9,02,324/- payable jointly by the owner of the
vehicle and the respondent no.2-insurer – However, High Court
held that appellant travelling in tractor was in breach of insurance
policy and absolved the insurer from the liability to pay
compensation – On appeal, held: High Court rightly found in favour
of insurer that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger
which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was
insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods –
Appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the
tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver –
Resultantly, insurer was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered
by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor –
However, in view of the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court
in various judgments, insurer directed to pay the compensation
amount determined by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court
to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor
owner.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court rightly found in favour of
respondent No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the
tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition,
for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for
carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 649
  649
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
out that neither the trailer was insured nor any trailer was attached
to the tractor. Thus, the appellant travelled in the tractor as a
passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one
person namely the driver. As a result, the respondent No.2
(insurer) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the
appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion
reached by the High Court is unexceptionable in the fact situation
of the instant case. However, in the facts of the instant case, the
High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to
pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with
liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the
consistent view taken in that regard by this Court.
[Paras 9 and 10] [654-A-D]
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarna Singh & Ors.
(2004) 3 SCC 297 : [2004] 1 SCR 180 ; Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC
656 ; Rani & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. 2018 (9) SCALE 310 ; Manuara Khatun and
Others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. (2017) 4
SCC 796  – referred to.
2.  As regards, the determination of compensation amount
by the tribunal and as affirmed by the High Court, the tribunal
had taken into account all the relevant aspects and provided for
just and proper compensation amount for different heads as are
permissible. The High Court, therefore, was justified in not
disturbing the said conclusion of the tribunal. The view so taken
by the High Court affirmed. [Para 11] [654-F-G]
Case Law Reference
[2004] 1 SCR 180
referred to
Para 10
(2018) 5 SCC 656
referred to
Para 10
2018 (9) SCALE 310
referred to
Para 10
(2017) 4 SCC 796
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
Nos. 8278-8279 of 2018.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2015 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in MFA No. 7662 of 2013 (MV) C/w MFA
No. 9995 of 2013 (MV).
Ms. Kanika, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, Ashwin V. K., Ms. Rekha
Chandra Sekhar, H. Chandra Sekhar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. 1. These appeals are directed
against the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 13th August, 2015 in M.F.A. No.7662 of
2013 (MV) and M.F.A. No.9995 of 2013 (MV) whereby the High Court
allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 (insurer) and dismissed
the appeal for enhancement of compensation preferred by the appellant
(injure

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.