Ram Milan Gupta and Another vs Dashrath Singh Gond and Another

M.C. Garg, J.—Appellant No. 2 is the owner of the tractor bearing No. MP-17/6572 which met with an accident inasmuch as, while carrying some stones in the aforesaid tractor it turned which caused injures to the persons who were sitting in the tractor and also to the injured on account of turning of the tractor. The claim petition was objected to by the insurance company on the ground that in this case, insurance company could not have been fastened with the liability for two reasons i.e. (I) tractor could not have been used for other purpose except agriculture for which it was insured, carrying stones could not have been said to be agricultural purpose and (ii) passengers are not allowed to sit on the tractor.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted the pleas taken by the insurance company and while granting compensation to the injured has exonerated the insurance company but fastened the liability on the owner. Relevant discussion appears in paras 17 to 20 of the impugned award which reads as under:-

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company has supported the aforesaid finding with judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others, wherein it has been held as under:

This position of law has been clarified by Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prembai Patel and Others, . The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prembai Patel (supra) from paragraph 12 of the judgment as reported in the AIR is extracted below:

Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 provides that a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of death of, or bodily injury to any person or passenger or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in public place. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (b) are comprehensive in the sense that they cover both ''any person'' or ''passenger''. An employee of owner of the vehicle like a driver or a conductor may also come within the purview of the words ''any person'' occurring in Sub-clause (i). However, the proviso (i) to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 says that a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen''s Act if the employee is such as described in Sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c). The effect of this proviso is that if an insurance policy covers the liability under the Workmen''s Act in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee as is described in Sub-clauses (a) or (b) or (c) of proviso (i) to Section 147(1)(b), it will be a valid policy and would comply with the requirements of Chapter XI of the Act.

Sub-section (5) of Section 147 of the Act, however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance u/s 147 of the Act shall be liable to indemnify a person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or classes of persons. Thus, if the policy of insurance covers any liability in addition to the liability u/s 147(1) of the Act, the insurer will be liable to indemnify the insured in case of any liability not because of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 but because of the terms and conditions of contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured. Therefore, if the contract of insurance provides for a liability to a passenger or to an employee other than the liabilities provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured against such liability.

Considering the aforesaid judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court, conditions of the policy and admitted fact that the tractor was used for carrying stones which were brought for the purpose of putting tube well, in which owner brought number of persons which were carrying stones probably work of the owner was for the purpose of getting tube well fixed, the owner apparently violated conditions of the policy, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned award passed by the tribunal in exonerating the insurance company. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed.