Telangana High Court: Barring People with over Two Children From Polls Violates No Fundamental Right  ||  Del HC Clarifies That Breach of Promise to Marry is Not The Same as False Promise Amounting To Rape  ||  Delhi High Court Rules Law Students Cannot be Barred From Exams For Not Meeting Minimum Attendance  ||  Delhi HC: Only a Sessions Court, Not an Ilaqa Magistrate, Can Order Further Probe After Committal  ||  Allahabad High Court: Protecting Homebuyers’ Interests is Paramount in Real Estate Insolvency  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Can Freeze Accounts on Suspicion; Affected Party May Seek Magistrate’s Relief  ||  NCLAT: Claimants Must Prove Asset Ownership; Liquidator Need Not Establish Title of Assets in Custody  ||  NCLAT: Director’s Resignation Doesn’t Release Personal Guarantor from Continuing Guarantee Liability  ||  NCLAT: Delay Condonable When Composite Appeal Filed in Time is Refiled after Registry’s Objection  ||  Supreme Court: Upper Floors Can be Converted for Commercial Use Only after Paying Conversion Charges    

Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nandlal Dhakad and Ors. - (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (01 Mar 2021)

Using any thrasher affixed to the vehicle, will be treated as use of the vehicle (tractor) and as tractor was insured, insurance company is liable to pay compensation

MANU/MP/0176/2021

Motor Vehicles

This Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Appellant-Insurance Company, assailing the Award passed by Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, whereby, a total compensation of Rs. 6,73,000 has been awarded to the claimants on account of the death of deceased.

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.

In Kalim Khan and Ors. vs. Fimidabee and Ors., the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, the word 'use of vehicle' used under Motor Vehicles Act and using any thrasher affixed to the vehicle, will be treated as use of the vehicle (tractor). In the light of above, it is held that since the thrasher was attached with the tractor and was functional with the help of tractor and the tractor was insured with the insurance company, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed.

Relevant : Kalim Khan and Ors. vs. Fimidabee and Ors. MANU/SC/0677/2018

Tags : AWARD   COMPENSATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved