Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has ruled that an insurance company cannot avoid liability for an agricultural tractor-trailer by relying on a policy condition prohibiting its use for “hire or reward”. Such a condition is contrary to Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 141 and Form No. 51 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the court said.Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar made the observation in a judgment dated Sept 23 while rejecting the contention raised by National Insurance Company Ltd. The court held that the insurer could not have imposed such a condition in the policy when the vehicle was being used to transport agricultural or forestry produce.The case arose from an accident on May 3, 2010. Madesha, a timber merchant, had taken Dastagirsab and Yelakaiah to Chinnikatte village in Shivamogga district to cut Nilgiri trees. After the trees were cut, the poles were loaded onto a tractor-trailer. The driver took the vehicle to a weighbridge, but allegedly drove rashly. The tractor-trailer overturned and fell on Dastagirsab, Yelakaiah and Madesha, who were waiting for it. All three suffered serious injuries and died.A tribunal in Bhadravathi, while considering compensation claims filed by the families of the deceased, awarded Rs 4.5 lakh and Rs 5.7 lakh, with 6% interest, to the families of Dastagirsab and Yelakaiah, both carpenters. It awarded Rs 1.5 lakh, with 6% interest, to Madesha’s family. Liability was initially fastened on Muniswamy, the tractor-trailer’s owner.Aggrieved by the tribunal’s order, Muniswamy filed three appeals before the high court. The insurance company opposed the appeals, arguing that the insurance policy contained a specific clause prohibiting the vehicle’s use for hire or reward.Justice Sanjeevkumar, after examining the material on record, noted that the vehicle was being used for the owner’s own purpose, namely agriculture or forestry, as permitted under law. The judge noted that a tractor-trailer used as an agricultural goods vehicle is a transport vehicle meant for carrying agricultural and forestry produce. There was no violation of this requirement in the present case, he said.The judge further held that transportation of agricultural or forestry produce by such a tractor-trailer could not be treated as use for “hire or reward”, irrespective of whether the vehicle was used by its owner or another person. Therefore, a policy condition prohibiting such use would be contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the judge said, ruling that the insurer was not empowered to impose such a condition in the policy or rely on it to escape liability.Allowing Muniswamy’s three appeals, the HC held that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the families of the deceased.
