IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. 5106 of 1998
To
FIRST APPEAL No. 5108 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
GAJIBA WD/O GAGUJI NATVARSINH VAGHELA & 2 - Defendant(s)
========================================================= Appearance :
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, 3, NOTICE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, =========================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 16/04/2012
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1.0 The appellant Insurance Company has preferred these appeals against the common judgment and award dated 18.04.1998 passed by the M.A.C.T.(Main), Palanpur (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. Nos. 3 of 1984, 121 of 1984 and 156 of 1984 whereby, the said claim petitions were partly allowed.
2.0 The facts as emerging from the record are that on 29.10.1983, the labourers were going in the tractor No.GAE-6595 and trailer No.GRO-2368 for loading pebbles and at that time the trailer was overturned and as a result, two labours were died and another was injured. Therefore, the original claimants filed these petitions for the compensation. The Tribunal, by impugned award, partly allowed the claim petitions. Hence, the present appeals.
3.0 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though served none appears on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 3. The challenge to the award is that the deceased and injured were traveling on a Tractor and as per the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” is not a “vehicle” meant for carrying passengers. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
4.0 It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Tractor. Under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” has been defined as a vehicle not meant for carrying passengers. Otherwise also, it is a matter of common knowledge that Tractor is not meant for carrying passengers. Whosoever takes a ride on it shall be doing so at his own risk. If some unfortunate event takes place, then neither the Driver of the Tractor nor its Owner could be held liable to pay compensation and if the Tractor is insured with the Insurance Company, then no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company for the death or injuries sustained in the accident.
5.0 The aforesaid principle has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Manjulaben Purshottamdas Patel & ors. reported in 1994 (1) G.L.R. pg. 269 wherein, it has been held that a “Tractor” or a “Trailer” being a “goods vehicle”, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.
5.1 Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tarawati and others reported in 1994 A.C.J. pg. 822 and in recent decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ors reported in J.T. 2003 (6) S.C. pg. 97 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnama and others reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. pg. 4338.
6.0 In above view of the matter, it is amply clear that a “Tractor” is a “goods vehicle” and, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay the compensation in question. Hence, it has to be concluded that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation since the vehicle involved in the accident is a “goods vehicle” i.e. Tractor. Hence, the impugned award of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7.0 For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed only qua the extent of imposition of liability on the appellant- Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K. S. JHAVERI, J.) ..mitesh..