2007 (5) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether both the tractor and the trolley were insured or not? Whether the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realize the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the trolley was insured.
2. Whether the claim petition was maintainable as the tractor was not used for agricultural work.
3. Whether the respondent was a gratuitous passenger and if the claim was covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. Whether the insurer was liable to pay the compensation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the trolley was insured:
The appellant Insurance Company contended that the trolley was not insured, and only the tractor was insured. The Tribunal noticed this defense but did not delve into it. The records did not show any insurance cover for the trolley by the tractor's owner. The High Court also did not address this contention.

2. Whether the claim petition was maintainable as the tractor was not used for agricultural work:
The Insurance Company argued that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes, and since it was used for transporting earth to a brick kiln, it violated the insurance contract conditions. The Tribunal found that the tractor was indeed not used for agricultural purposes as the earth was meant for manufacturing bricks, not agricultural work. This was supported by the respondent's admission in his claim petition.

3. Whether the respondent was a gratuitous passenger and if the claim was covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
The appellant argued that the respondent was a gratuitous passenger and thus not covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court in previous cases, including National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, clarified that the insurance did not cover gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle. The respondent was neither the owner nor the driver of the tractor but merely a passenger on the trolley. Consequently, his claim could not be allowed under the Act.

4. Whether the insurer was liable to pay the compensation:
Despite the above findings, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice. The Court directed the appellant to pay the awarded compensation to the respondent, considering his grievous injuries and poor financial condition. However, the appellant was entitled to recover the amount from the tractor and trolley's owner without initiating separate proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal with specific directions. The appellant Insurance Company was ordered to pay the compensation to the respondent but could recover the amount from the owner of the tractor and trolley. The Court emphasized the need for complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, considering the respondent's severe injuries and financial hardship. No costs were imposed.