# National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Riyasat Ali and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 3 ILRA 699
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-07-17
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1791 of 2008
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-co-ltd-v-riyasat-ali-and-others-41133
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor vehicle Act 1988- Rule2(44)-
Tractor for agricultural purpose-accident
caused due to hit by train-Tribunal fixed
joint
liability-appeal
by
insurance
company-disputing the use of tractor for
purpose other than agriculture-total non
consideration
of
this
aspect-case
remitted back for fresh consideration.

Held: Para 8

Hence in totality, we dispose of the
appeal at the stage of admission without
imposing any costs giving liberty to the
appellant to make an application before
the Tribunal which would be heard upon
notice and giving opportunity of hearing
to
all
the
parties
but
under
no
circumstances
the
payment
of
compensation to the claimants should be
stalled

## Text

3 All] National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Riyasat Ali and others
699
enhancement was not justified in rejecting
that application on the ground that parties
had compromised in Civil Suit and Smt.
Manorama had agreed not to claim any
maintenance in future. Therefore the
impugned order dated 18.1.2005 is to be
set aside and the Criminal Revision No.
1145 of 2005 is to be allowed. The Judge,
family court has rightly rejected the
application filed by Mahesh Chandra
Dwivedi under Section 127 Cr.P.C. and
the Criminal Revision No. 3228 of 2007
being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed.

11. Criminal Revision No. 1145 of
2005 is hereby allowed. Order dated
18.1.2005 is set aside and the case is
remanded to learned Trial Judge, Family
Court, Kanpur Nagar, who shall decide
the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
for
enhancement
of
maintenance
allowance on merits. Parties are directed
to appear in the Trial Court for further
orders on 11.8.2008.

12. Criminal Revision No. 3228 of
2007 is hereby dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1791 of 2008

National Insurance Company Ltd.

...Appellant
Versus
Riyasat Ali and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri. K.S. Amist

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. Nigamendra Shukla

Motor vehicle Act 1988- Rule2(44)-
Tractor for agricultural purpose-accident
caused due to hit by train-Tribunal fixed
joint
liability-appeal
by
insurance
company-disputing the use of tractor for
purpose other than agriculture-total non
consideration
of
this
aspect-case
remitted back for fresh consideration.

Held: Para 8

Hence in totality, we dispose of the
appeal at the stage of admission without
imposing any costs giving liberty to the
appellant to make an application before
the Tribunal which would be heard upon
notice and giving opportunity of hearing
to
all
the
parties
but
under
no
circumstances
the
payment
of
compensation to the claimants should be
stalled

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

1. This appeal is arising out of a
judgment and order passed by the
concerned
Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal, Bulandshahar, dated 20.2.2008
in M.A.C. No. 152 of 2000. Two persons
died and one injured when the Tractor
was hit by a Train on the way. It has been
contended
by
the
learned
counsel
appearing for the insurance Company
here as well as in the court below that the
Tractor is meant for agricultural purpose
but when it was carrying some household
material like cement and sands etc. for the
construction of the house, it has been
proceeded
in
contravention
of
the
insurance Policy for which either the
owner has to pay the compensation or the
insurance Company will pay with the
right of recovery of the same from the
owner. The claimants are represented by
Sri Nigamendra Shukla, the learned
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
counsel present before the court. The
insurance Company further contended
that although right of recovery has been
given thereunder but the same is restricted
only with regard to the verification of the
driving licence which he does not want to
agitate before us in view of the
availability of such document.

2. It appears to us that the Tractor
and Train both were fastened with the
liability of 50% each. Now the main
question has been raised before us for
which a 'Tractor' is made particularly
upon going through provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act read with the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 and U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 to find out the meaning of
agricultural purpose.

3. It appears to us, the definition of
Tractor has been given under section 2
(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988,
which is as follows:-

"2 (44). "tractor" means a motor
vehicle which is not itself constructed to
carry any load (other than equipment used
for the purpose of propulsion); but
excludes a road-roller."

Therefore, a very wide meaning has been
given under the Act. No where the
propose and use is described.

''Rule 2 (b) under the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules 1989 speaks about the
meaning of Agricultural Tractor as
follows:

"2 (b). "agricultural tractor" means any
mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle
designed
to
work
with
suitable
implements for various field operations
and/or trailers to transport agricultural
materials. Agricultural tractor is a nontransport vehicle."

4. Therefore as per the Rules
meaning of tractor is narrowed down by
putting an additional word 'agricultural
tractor'. Now it is to be seen whether the
insurance coverage is meant for 'tractor'
or 'agricultural tractor'. On the other hand
if the statute interpreted, it will be known
that when the Act is silent, vacuum will
be filled up by the Rule laid down under
the Act.

5. Section 142 (2) of The U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 gives a coverage of the use of
agriculture under the Heading ' use of
land and improvements' as follows:-
"142 (2). A bhumidhar with nontransferable rights shall, subject to the
provisions of this Act, have the right to
exclusive possession of all land of which
he is bhumidhar and to use such land for
any purpose connected with agriculture, ,
horticulture or animal husbandry which
includes pisciculture, poultry farming and
social forestry."

6. Therefore, we get extended
meaning of 'agriculture'. However we do
not get any clue from the aforesaid
discussions whether use of tractor for any
domestic purpose is absolutely barred or
not.

7. Therefore in totality, we cannot
say that there is no case for consideration
as agitated by the learned counsel on
behalf of the insurance Company in
presence of the learned counsel appearing
for the claimants at all. Thus, we modify
the order impugned by saying that the
right of recovery as given for restricted
3 All] Amir Hasan V. State of U.P. and others
701
purpose
can
be
expanded
for
reconsideration by the court on the
application of the insurance Company and
giving opportunity of hearing to all the
parties to arrive at a right conclusion
independently without being influenced
by the, prima facie, observation of the
Court.

8. Hence in totality, we dispose of
the appeal at the stage of admission
without imposing any costs giving liberty
to the appellant to make an application
before the Tribunal which would be heard
upon notice and giving opportunity of
hearing to all the parties but under no
circumstances
the
payment
of
compensation to the claimants should be
stalled.

9. Incidentally, the appellantinsurance company prayed that the
statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made
before this Court for preferring this appeal
be remitted back to the concerned Motor
Accidents
Claims
Tribunal
as
expeditiously as possible in order to
adjust the same with the amount of
compensation to be paid to the claimants,
however, such prayer is allowed.

Appeal disposed of.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2003

Amir Hasan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. M.A. Quadeer
Sri. Shamim Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act 1894-Section 54Applicability of the provisions of C.P.C.-
during
pendency
of
reference
proceeding-applicant died-brother of the
applicant
doing
hotel
business
at
Bombay-rarely visits his home townafter
getting
information
moved
substitution application with application
for condonation of delay-rejection by
District Judge as provisions of Limitation
Act not applicable-held-illegal contrary
to view settled by High Court as well as
Supreme Court-liberal view ought to
have adopted-instead of remitting the
matter before Court below-delay in filing
substitution condoned-reference Court
directed
to
decide
substitution
application on merit.

Held: Para 18

Now coming to the fact of the case, it
appears that the impugned order was
passed by the court below/reference
court rejecting the delay condonation
application of petitioner moved along
with
substitution
application
under
Order XXII Rule 3 for bringing the legal
representative and heir of the claimant
Sabbir Hasan on record on the ground
that the same was not maintainable
before the court, in my opinion, view
taken by the court below is contrary to
the view taken by me, therefore, cannot
be sustained. The rejection of delay
condonation application of the petitioner
moved
along
with
substitution
application on merits too appears to be
erroneous. I am of the considered
opinion that liberal view ought to have
been taken by the court below while
considering the cause shown by the
petitioner
in
moving
such
belated
application. The specific case taken by
the petitioner was that he was residing
in Bombay in connection of his Hotel
business and rarely visits his home town