AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard Mr. B. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the Appellant. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. None appeared for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7, though served.
In the present Appeal, the Appellant/Insurance Company has questioned the Judgment and Award dated 9/1/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in Claim Petition No. 89/2003 on the ground that there was a breach of insurance policy and the same was established on record, but without considering the same, learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.2,92,000/- along with interest. Hence, the present Appeal is preferred before this Court.
The main contention of the Appellant in the present Appeal is that the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, was not used for agricultural purpose of owner, and therefore, the same amount to breach of policy conditions, and accordingly, the Insurance Company cannot be held responsible for paying any compensation to the Appellant. He further pointed out that the police document, particularly, First Information Report, discloses that owner of the tractor was Prashant Ramrao Ghatole and one Panjabrao Shivankar was driver of the said tractor.
In support of the submission made in the Appeal, the learned Counsel for Appellant has drawn my attention to the evidence which was recorded before the Tribunal and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the basis of that evidence. He has pointed out that as per the police report, at the time of accident deceased Sudhir Kene was working as labourer with Prashant Ghatole. It is also pointed out that the orange orchard in the field of Prashant Ghatole has been sold out to Sudhir Tikhe. At that time the deceased was working as a labourer in the field of Sudhir Tikhe. Hence, according to the present Appellant, it cannot be said that the deceased was working with the owner of the tractor, so also the tractor was not used for the agricultural purpose of the owner.
In the present Appeal, none appeared for the Respondent/Claimant nor driver as well as owner of the vehicle. The record shows that notices were duly served on the Respondents, however, none of them have appeared in the matter.
After hearing the Appellant in the matter, I have verified the evidence which was made available on record. On the part of Insurance Company, only the evidence of Administrative Officer was recorded and he has only pointed out in his evidence that if the terms and conditions of the policy are not followed, then the Insurance Company is not responsible for compensation. In the evidence of this witness, it is stated that if the tractor was used by another person, other than the owner, then the Insurance Company will not be responsible for the same. But perusal of the evidence clearly shows that in the evidence it is not specifically pointed out that as per which terms and conditions of the policy same amounts to fundamental breach of the policy and thereby the entire contract come to an end. So also no independent evidence was brought on record by the Insurance Company to establish beyond doubt that the present Appellant was not working as a labourer with the owner of the vehicle.
From the evidence and the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal, one thing is clear that the deceased was doing labour work. It is also clear that Ghatole has sold out his orange orchard orchard to one Sudhir Tikhe and in that transaction the deceased was doing the work of labour. In such circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that the deceased was not working as a labourer of the owner of the vehicle.
In my opinion, if the Appellant/Insurance Company has taken a defence that there was a breach of policy, firstly, Insurance Company has to establish on record by concrete evidence that, (i) which of the term and condition of policy is violated in the matter? (ii) such term and condition is of fundamental in nature; and (iii) so also due to breach of that condition entire contract between the parties came to an end automatically. But, nothing is proved in the matter.
It is not established on record that deceased was not the labourer on the vehicle. It is only contended that he was not the labourer of owner of vehicle. Hence, in my opinion, even for a sake of moment, if the same is accepted as a breach of condition of policy, same is not fundamental in nature to exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability.
Hence, for the aforesaid reason, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has taken up possible view in the matter, and accordingly, on the basis of settled principles of law, decided the Claim Petition. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter and the deceased being a labourer, I am of the opinion that no indulgence is required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the present Appeal stands dismissed.