J&K&L High Court: Maternity Leave is a Constitutional Right and Cannot be Treated as State Charity  ||  P&H High Court: Second Anticipatory Bail Plea is Not Maintainable After Supreme Court Rejection  ||  Bombay High Court: No Prior Sanction is Required to Prosecute Police For Custodial Assault  ||  Allahabad High Court: Strict Proof of Marriage is Unnecessary if Couple Lived as Husband and Wife  ||  Delhi High Court: UP Passport Disputes Cannot be Filed in Delhi Only Because MEA is Based There  ||  Bombay High Court: Revenue Officers Cannot Decide Caste Status to Remove Tribal Land Protections  ||  Calcutta High Court: Punjab National Bank Liable to Compensate Farmers For Crop Insurance Lapse  ||  Calcutta High Court: Joint Settlement of Liquor Licence is Allowed if All Eligible Heirs Consent  ||  Delhi High Court Holds Multiple Sclerosis is a Specified Disability under the RPWD Act  ||  Allahabad High Court: An Alibi Must be Proved at Trial and Cannot be Accepted by the IO Alone    

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