Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved