Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava JUDGMENT
Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J.
1. This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, assailing the Award dated 12.03.2013 passed by Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri in Claim Case No. 137/2011, whereby, a total compensation of Rs. 6,73,000/- has been awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Baisram Dhakad.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that deceased Baisram was doing the business of running flour mill and had been working on the thrasher machine on the date of incident. While he was working on the machine, it is alleged that the driver/owner of tractor bearing registration No. MP 33A-5343 rashly and negligently started the tractor, as a result of which the deceased was dragged in the thrasher machine and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The matter was reported to the concerning Police Station and a case under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant. Therefore, the claimants, who are the parents, wife and children of the deceased filed a claim case, in which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,73,000/- payable jointly and severely by the Insurance Company, owner/driver.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company argued that the impugned award is against the settled principle of law and also contrary to the facts and material on record. The Tribunal did not properly appreciate provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The conclusion drawn with regard to death of deceased by thrasher while using tractor is erroneous. As thrasher machine was not insured with the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. As only tractor was insured, therefore the Tribunal has erred in passing the award against the appellant-insurance company. Hence, prayed for allowing the present appeal with costs and setting aside the impugned award dated 12.3.2013. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgments in Ashok Verma vs. Shivnath Singh Sikarwar [2007 (1) D.M.P. 279 (MP)]; Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ramalingegowda and another [MANU/KA/0470/2011 : 2012 ACJ 1595]; Kaushnuma Begum and others vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others [MANU/SC/0002/2001 : 2001 ACJ 428]; and, Savitha vs. Cholamandlam Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 2611/2020, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.6.2020].
4. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the submissions and placed reliance on the judgments in Kalim Khan vs. Fimidabee [MANU/SC/0677/2018 : 2018 ACJ 2025]; Kishore Gayre vs. Shahid Shah and another [MANU/MP/0476/2010 : (2011) 2 MPLJ 201]; and, National Insurance Com........