(O&M) Malik Sahab v. Raj Bala And ORS.

     

   



!

"#
$%%   "#"&#'

!

"#


()*+ ,(-(.

%%%%%%// ))(#0 (2 ()( (#!

"0-

%%%%%

/"#!

#0

 45

,% , ,  ,  


 

 








!
 

"
 





#$%&

 
 %%%% ,  , 

%

5 '


( 
(!



%* 
 

+
 )
+)


*
 
,-,


) 
 )

  
. 
,/-%
 
 
)

)
')( 
.) 
0

 
1 
')( 12
*  ) 
3
')(

* 

 )

(!

 )


 


0* 
 


+
 ) 2
)(

!




 )

 ,   ,  '
() 






) 
 )



,4--
"
  
0 
   2
( ) +

+)



( 

+ 
 )
(* )

) +
 


)  
 

 % 

!
)
(!
)
%

#
,
' !

 

 




!
 
 
 )
(* ) "
  
*




!
(!
 
5)
 


! 6


#,%)


 


 

5)





!

)





*) 

)
)
*)


+
 



"
  
*  


 

*)

  ) 
)

)
(
) 7) 
) 
 


8
* )


))
8

 (* )
* 

 
9)
)
 
(!
*
  

 +) )
)

*


+
  
) 
 )
.


) !

(* )
- :

)
 
 )





  


 
 



 )

(!
+
*)



 !) 

 



;)

< =


) +
 
 

')(  


*) +
)



1. Whether the accident took place as a result of use of vehicle bearing registration No. HR24A3324 driven by respondent No.1 Krishan Kumar as alleged? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties ? OPR

5. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor in question on the day of the alleged accident, if so, to what effect? OPR3.

6. Relief.

 


) +
)




)  

) + 
) 


 

 
')(
* 



 )


=  


3
')(

 
* 
0

2
 


+
 )

)( !




8  


, ,,,  5

,5,   , /
3  









 ')(
 
)
 
 
 
 
 )  
8

  
()


   %"
  
*


! 
(!


%* 

+)


*

) )

!

) +
 


) +

 
 
 
 
)


   %"
  
* ++ 
)


 


!


&
)   


 

&

  !

) 

( 

   
*

+ ) 

+ 
'   

!



(


* 
 
*  
,-,
(

)  4  



 






%&

 
 !




+ 
 
')( 


 

 

 
 

!
* 
+)

 




!
*



!
)

 
8
  
+ 


*
 !

)



$ &

 
 




  
*

 
 


$

 '
 


*
)
  

   "13. As per the insurance policy Ex. R1 the offending tractor was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa/respondent No.3 at the time of the alleged accident. Shri A. S. Kalra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company has argued that the deceased Ram Chander was a passenger in the offending tractor. He was neither owner nor driver of the offending tractor. The offending tractor was being used for commercial purposes. So, the insurance company/respondent No.3 is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the case law reported as "
 

 

 



  

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land held that when the tractor and trailer were not being used for agricultural purposes and were being used for commercial purposes even otherwise registered for agricultural purposes and not registered otherwise, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. He also relied upon the case law reported as !"" 

# $ %  

 &

Accident And Compensation Cases 472 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the goods vehicle could not have carried passengers. So, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. Similarly, in a Division Bench judgment of Honible Kerala High Court in the case law reported as "
 

   

'(

   )(*+ has held that the tractor is not a goods vehicle and not permitted to carry goods or passengers and in case of death of a passenger, the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case law reported es ",-, " 

- .   +    

 &  

      /*+ ".

14. On the other hand, while controverting the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3/insurance company, Shri A.K.Gupta, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri V.S.Sra, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2, have argued that admittedly the offending tractor is not meant for agricultural purposes and the same is being used for agricultural purposes for transporting fodder. The deceased Ram Chander was employed as a labourer for loading and unloading the fodder, so, he was not a passenger and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. In support of their arguments they have relied upon the case law reported as "+""



0  

 &  !  ( wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka held that in case of death of employees of the owner of, tractortrailer travelling in the vehicle net with accident due to its rash and negligent driving, then the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. In the case law reported as "+"'






1 ,

22/ !

&2 the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that when the driver of the Harvester combine struck the combine against an electric wire and electric current passed through the combine to all the 4 tractors and one of the occupants of a tractor was electrocuted and the death arose due to accident of a motor vehicle and the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable.

15. After hearing both the sides at length, giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of both the parties and the case law relied upon by both the sides, I am of the confirmed opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/ insurance company are forceful and the dictum relied upon by him reported as relied upon the case law



reported as "
  

       

  



     3 4!" 

#  $ %  

 &

   / 3
 

    

 '  (

        )(*+ 3      ,  -, "   

- .   +    

 &  

      /*+ (supra) are from the Hon'ble Apex Court of Land and from a Division Bench of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereas the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 reported as reported as +"" 



0 

& !( and +"

'






1 ,

22/ !

&2 are from Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Courts of the Punjab and Haryana and Karnatka. So, I have no option but to follow the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and a Division Bench of the Hon'ble high Court of Madhya Pradesh. Hence, I have no hesitation in concluding that the deceased Ram Chander on 17.3.2003 was a passenger in the offending tractor at the time of the accident and the offending tractor was being used for commercial purposes for transporting the fodder at the time of the acc1dent. So, the respondent No.3/insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Since, respondent No.2 Malik Sahib is the owner of the offending tractor, so he is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents No.1 and 2."

, 
 
*
 
 )
 
  

3 ')(

)






)
 ) 


;*




+
 )
* )( !



 )

 + 
 )
*
( ) +
 
 ) 

    
*

+ ) 

+  ,, &
)


 
 +) 

) 

 


   
*


! 
(!





) )

 ) +
 

) 
 
> 
 
)



   
* 

+ 


!


 

 


 
 
 


)
)



) +
')  
*


!



(!
( 



 )


 )

 %

  
.)+ )

!
 &

 
 !
)


 !
) 

)





!

 
   


( 


* 

+
+ ) 

! , '
 
')( 
*  
) 


 ) )
)


 

!
 
   


+ ) 

+ 
.
  
)

!


!

) 

 
(


   

+ ) )

)

+) ) +



!
++ 
)
+)



 )) !


+ ) 

+ 
'
 
 
   
*


) 

* 
 
 )

ipso facto
  
)

+ ) 




 )  !
*

* ++ 
)


!

% 
 ,- =  
)
)
*

(  


)) 

+) 
&

+)

+


& )
)
)


 ) 
 
(
 


+
+)

  
  
  
% 
 )




 ) 
  


(!



 
'


!


 

 
 )

)

!
 
'


 
) 

 
   
)

)

+ ( )


+)


 )) !
 


(
 


? )
 @
(!
 !



)

,< '
) 
  
')( 
7)) )
  *)

 
+)

  )



) 

*) 

 )

 

& )
 
 

+

!


(
  , 
 + 


) 
(!

&

 
 !

   %)

 
 


!
)
+


 
 )
)

) *
 
*
)
*
(!

8 A(
.  

)
-  

  

 "45#


&
)&
'  9


 +)

!
 
)

 



)() !
  !


+ 
) 



!


 

 
*



!

 

 

9  

)
  

   "9.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material/evidence on record. We have given serious consideration to the issue as it raises a mixed question of fact and law where both have to be harmoniously balanced.

10.

In the present case, the admitted fact is that the incident occurred while a tractor which was insured with the Appellant was attached to a trailer and on the trailer a person was present who due to an unfortunate accident, fell off the trailer which was being pulled by/driven by/attached to the tractor, resulting in the death of such person.

11.

Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on

which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer standalone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.

12.

Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfareoriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager,



United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is dutybound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality." ,/ &
) *
 
 +) +
) 





*

+
 
 
')(

)() !
 


* 
!



 )

) +

!


( 
) )(


(

)  ,4

B

!


)

* 
 
) + *
 
,-,
)
) ) 

9




#-% &

 
 !

(
)( !





 )

,$ '
&

 
 !
)
  (!
)  
) ( 


  

"
 

*) )

)


!


 
  )


 !
 )
 
)
) *
 
 
 
,$4<


)
=>
#,/$

4
(!
)


,  +


) 2
) !



)




,  , 

  

)
 6  

) +;  .

) + 6  

 (

;

#