MEENA GANGADHAR ZOREversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., THR ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, AURANGABAD AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:33796


                                                                                  fa1309.06
                                                    -1-


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2006
                                              WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1312 OF 2023
                                              WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9456 OF 2019

                                  The New India Insurance Co. Ltd
                                               VERSUS
                   Gangadhar Lohaji Jhore Died Through L.Rs. Indubai Gangadhar
                   Jhore Died Through L.Rs. Meena Gangadhar Jhore and others
                                                  ...
                 Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Swapnil S. Rathi
                 Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2a, 2b and 3 : Mr. J.C. Badve
                                                  …..

                                      CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                      DATED : 31st JULY, 2026

                 PER COURT :-


                 1.        This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against

                 the judgment and award passed by the Ex-Officio Member, Motor

                 Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna in M.A.C.P. No. 68 of 2004, dated

                 16.07.2005.



                 2.        The brief facts of the claimants' case are that the deceased,

                 Rameshwar, was engaged by respondent No. 5, the owner of the

                 tractor, as a labourer. On 21.04.2004, the tractor bearing registration

                 No. MH-21-A-7201, carrying crushed stones (gitti), was proceeding

                 towards village Rahiri. The trolley attached to the tractor turned turtle,

                 causing Rameshwar to fall down. He was crushed under the stones
                                                               fa1309.06
                                  -2-

loaded in the trolley and died on the spot. Consequently, a crime

came to be registered in connection with the said incident. Claimant

Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Rameshwar, claimant

No. 3 is his brother, and claimant No. 4 is his sister. According to the

claimants, they were dependent upon the income of the deceased

Rameshwar. Therefore, they filed the claim petition seeking

compensation.



3.       Respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company, contested the

claim petition and admitted that the offending tractor was covered

under a valid insurance policy. However, it denied the material

averments made in the claim petition, particularly its liability to pay

compensation. It was contended that the tractor was being used for

carrying crushed stones (gitti), which amounted to commercial use

and was contrary to the purpose for which the vehicle had been

insured. According to the Insurance Company, such use constituted a

breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore,

the Insurance Company contended that it was not liable to pay any

compensation.



4.       The learned Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is

liable to pay the compensation and awarded compensation to the

claimants of Rs.2,68,800/-.
                                                                 fa1309.06
                                   -3-



5.        The    learned    advocate     for   the   appellant–Insurance

Company submitted that the pleadings and the evidence adduced by

the claimants clearly establish that Rameshwar was travelling while

sitting in the trolley. It was further submitted that, although the trolley

was insured, carrying Rameshwar in the trolley was in violation of the

terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as he was not

authorised to travel therein. Therefore, according to the appellant–

Insurance Company, there was a breach of the policy conditions and,

consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay

compensation.



6.        The learned advocate for the appellant further relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others, AIR 2007 SC 1971,

wherein it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay

compensation. However, by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation

amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He

further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandrakala Babasaheb Mane and others,

rendered in First Appeal No. 1175 of 2005 and decided on
                                                               fa1309.06
                                  -4-

07.09.2020, wherein, in paragraph 12, this Court held that a tractor

registered for agricultural purposes cannot be used for non-

agricultural purposes unless it is duly registered for such use. It was

further held that, in the said case, the tractor was not registered for

non-agricultural purposes and no additional premium had been paid

to cover such use. This Court also observed that, since the deceased

was travelling in the trolley, he could not be treated as a third party.

He was neither the owner nor the driver of the tractor and, therefore,

his risk was not covered under the insurance policy.



7.       The learned advocate for the appellant invited attention to

the impugned judgment, particularly the findings recorded in

paragraph 14, wherein the Tribunal relied upon and considered the

amendment made to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the

Amendment Act of 1994 and held that the scope of insurance

coverage had been widened to include the owner of the goods or his

authorized representative. He pointed out that the Tribunal concluded

that, in the present case, the deceased was travelling in the trolley as

a representative or an authorized person of the owner of the tractor,

namely respondent No. 2. In support of his submissions, the learned

advocate relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others, 2003 (1)

TAC 1, wherein it was held that, in the case of a goods vehicle, the
                                                              fa1309.06
                                    -5-

insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the death or

bodily injury caused to a passenger travelling in such vehicle, except

to the owner of the goods or his authorized representative, as

contemplated under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He,

therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are

contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and,

consequently, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be set

aside.



8.       The learned advocate for the respondents–claimants invited

attention to the insurance policy (Exh. 35), particularly to the

schedule of premium, which covers the risk of the driver, the owner

and one employee under the Workmen's Compensation cover, for

which an additional premium of Rs. 25/- had been paid. He,

therefore, submitted that the deceased, Rameshwar, was an

employee/workman of the insured and, consequently, his travelling in

the trolley was covered under the terms of the policy. He further

submitted that the tractor and trolley were being used for transporting

crushed stones (gitti) excavated from a well, which activity was

connected with agricultural operations and, therefore, constituted

agricultural use. Accordingly, he contended that there is no merit in

the grounds raised in the appeal.
                                                                 fa1309.06
                                   -6-

9.        The learned advocate for the claimants relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited v. Honnamma and others

(Smt.), 2025 AIR (SCW) 2641, wherein it was held that the trolley

attached to the tractor was being pulled by the tractor and that the

trolley had turned turtle, resulting in the death of a person travelling

therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that it was not

the case that the accident had occurred solely due to any defect or

fault attributable to the trolley by itself. On the contrary, the accident

had been caused by the tractor which was pulling the trolley.

Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found no infirmity in

fastening the liability and in the determination of the quantum of

compensation. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned

advocate for the claimants submitted that the appeal is devoid of

merit and deserves to be dismissed.



10.       The learned advocate for the appellant has also invited

attention to the deposition of claimant Indubai Jhore as well as the

evidence of Sandesh Kamalakar, a witness examined on behalf of

the Insurance Company, who deposed that the tractor and trolley

insured with the Insurance Company were meant for agricultural

purposes and that carrying crushed stones (gitti) in the trolley would

not fall within the ambit of agricultural use. The terms and conditions
                                                               fa1309.06
                                   -7-

of the policy (Exh. 35) reveal that the risk of one employee was

covered, for which an additional premium of Rs. 25/- had been paid.

The admitted facts of the case disclose that Rameshwar was

travelling in the trolley as a labourer when it turned turtle due to the

rash and negligent driving of the tractor.




11.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view

of the fact that the policy covered the risk of one employee, namely

Rameshwar, the liability of the Insurance Company is required to be

considered accordingly. As regards the purpose for which the tractor

and trolley were being used, it is the case of the claimants that the

same was being used for carrying crushed stones (gitti). However,

neither the evidence adduced by the claimants nor that of the

respondents establishes that the tractor and trolley were being used

for any purpose other than agricultural purposes, namely, for

commercial purposes. In such peculiar facts and circumstances, the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan (supra) is not applicable to the present

case. Further, in United India Assurance Company Ltd. v.

Chandrakala Mane (supra), it has not been clarified in what

capacity the deceased/injured person was travelling in the trolley.

Moreover, in the said case, it was specifically held that the tractor

and trolley were being used for a non-agricultural purpose, whereas
                                                                fa1309.06
                                  -8-

the insurance policy covered only agricultural use.




12.   In the present case, there is no evidence on record to establish

that the tractor and trolley were being used for any non-agricultural

purpose in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

Therefore, the aforesaid decision is not useful to the case of the

appellant. Accordingly, there is no substance in the grounds raised in

the appeal. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.




13.       As far as the quantum of the compensation is concerned,

learned advocate for the respondents/claimants pointed out that the

Tribunal has not awarded the compensation as per the provisions of

law under the head of loss of future prospects and non pecuniary

heads.



14.       Learned advocate for the appellants strongly objected for

increase of the compensation amount, as the appeal or the cross

objection are not filed by the claimants.



15.       The law is settled that in case even if the claimants have

not preferred appeal or the cross objection and if it is pointed out that

they are entitled for enhancement in compensation, that can be

granted. From the impugned judgment it is found that 1/3rd amount
                                                              fa1309.06
                                  -9-

is deducted. However, one half amount deserves to be deducted.

Further, multiplier 18 is applicable, as Rameshwar was 18 years old

at the time of accident and multiplier 16 was applied. The income of

deceased Rameshwar was held @ Rs.2100/- p.m.. If 50% amount is

deducted towards his personal expenses, then the amount comes to

Rs.1050/-. If that amount is multiplied by 12, then annual income

comes to Rs.12,600/-. If it is multiplied by 18 then it comes to

Rs.2,26,800/-, to which the claimants are entitled.



16.      In addition to the above, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate,

as the claimants were depending upon the income of the deceased

and have lost their bread earner. They are further entitled to

compensation for loss of consortium at Rs.40,000/- each, i.e. total

Rs.80,000/-   for   two   dependents/claimants.       Accordingly,   the

claimants are entitled to an additional sum of Rs.1,10,000/- under the

aforesaid conventional heads.     Thus the claimants are entitled to

Rs.3,36,800/- (Rs.2,26,800 + 1,10,000). Although the Tribunal

awarded interest @ 9% p.a. having regard to the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and the prevailing economic scenario, the

rate of interest is modified to @ 7% p.a.



17.      The appeal deserves to be dismissed with modification of
                                                              fa1309.06
                                  -10-

the impugned judgment and award. The impugned judgment and

award is partly modified as under:-

                             ORDER

I.     The appeal is dismissed.


II.    The impugned judgment and award is set aside the modified
       as under:-


a)     The claimants are entitled to compensation amount of
       Rs.3,36,800/-, including the amount awarded by the Tribunal.


b)     The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
       remaining amount within a period of 12 weeks from today
       alongwith the accrued interest @ 7% p.a. on the said amount.


c)     The claimants are directed to pay the court fees on the
       enhanced amount of compensation.


d)     The claimants are also entitled to withdraw the remaining
       amount lying in the Registry of this Court with accrued interest
       thereon.


e)     On depositing the amount of compensation it be paid to the
       claimants’ legal representatives i.e. claimant Nos. 2-a and 2-b
       equally.

III.   Pending civil applications are disposed of.



                                   (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/