1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2003 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..... APPELLANT V E R S U S Bhimrao Uttamrao Borase & others. ..... RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2003 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..... APPELLANT V E R S U S Babanbai Supdu Dhangar & others. ..... RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2003 2 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..... APPELLANT V E R S U S Kalabai Raghunath Patil & others. ..... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Appellant. Shri. P.N.Kutty, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri. P.R.Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. [ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.] DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Three Appeals are arising out of the same accident, are taken for final hearing. The Appeals have been admitted on 18/8/2003. . Record was verified by the respective counsels and Court. 2. In a Tractor, on the fateful day, deceased Supdu, Raghunath and Jitendra travelled with their agricultural goods and in the said accident, lost their lives. The loss of control by Tractor driver lead to the accident. The counsel for tractor owner contended that since the tractor 3 was a goods vehicle, the liability needs to be fasten against the Insurance Company in terms of Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act and particularly the amendment effected in 1994. Though, these submissions are cosy in nature, difficult to digest, as nobody should travel beyond the terms of the Insurance policy. The Policy in the present case is a Farmer’s Packaging Policy, indicating thereby inhibition of carrying any other commercial activities or carrying other persons with their goods. The Insurance company is not required to cover the risk of passenger carried in Tractor or Trailor. The Tractor/trolley was not a goods carriage on hire. 3. The tractor and trolley were insured with appellant – New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It was under Farmer’s Insurance package with a reference at the bottom that it is a comprehensive policy. 4. The Insurance Company felt aggrieved by the Award of Rs. 1,91,700/-, Rs. 2,43,500/- and Rs. 1,65,000/- in the respective 3 Appeals. There is no controversy by now that the accident was due to the fault of tractor driver and with vicarious liability of the owner of the vehicle followed with indemnification by the Insurance Company. The fact remains, since the travel by the deceased in the trolley of the tractor was not in terms of coverage and the protection provided by the Insurance 4 Policy, they could not claim compensation as against the Insurance Company. 5. The submission that even if the Insurance Company is exonerated, it may be directed to make remittance of the respective claimants and then it can reimburse from the owner of the vehicle can not be accepted. However, for deposits so far made, some solace can be given to claimants. 6. The Insurance policy referred herein before, naturally in the facts situation exonerate the Insurance Company to answer respective claims and to face liability as indicated by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Consequently, though the order under challenge, so far as compensation is concerned, is not disturbed, the liability of the Insurance Company will not survive. Hence, order. [ i ] The First Appeals are allowed. [ ii ] The claim is dismissed as against the Appellant/ Insurance Company alone. [ iii ] The amount so far deposited by the Appellant/ Insurance Company encashed and to be encashed by the respective claimants, to 5 remain with them, security if any furnished by claimants be treated as discharged. [ iv ] The Appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to exhaust its remedies for recovering the amount from the Tractor owner, for the amount so far paid by it. No costs. [ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE knp/FA153,154,155.03 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14