SURAT SINGH Vs. VIMLA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant No. 1 (owner of the tractor) and appellant No. 2 (driver of the tractor) preferred this appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 24th November, 2007 passed by AMACT, Panna, camp at Pawai, district Panna in Claim Case No. 17/2007, whereby Insurance Company, respondent No. 6 non-applicant No. 3 was exonerated and appellants were directed to pay the compensation amount to claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The facts, in a nutshell, giving rise to this appeal are that claimants No. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the compensation of death of Ramesh Yadav, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 to 4. It was pleaded that appellant No. 1/non-applicant No. 2 was the owner of offended tractor and the same was driven by respondent No. 5. It is further pleaded that tractor was insured with respondent No. 6, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is further pleaded that appellant No. 2/non-applicant No. 4 was also driver.

(2.) It is further pleaded that on 10th February, 2005, deceased Ramesh and his uncle Keshri were sitting on the mudguard of aforesaid tractor. It is further pleaded that due to negligent driving of appellant No. 5/non-applicant No. 1 Ramesh fell down and he was crushed from the wheel of tractor trolley. Immediately, he was shifted to Katni and he was succumbed to his injuries. Report was lodged at police-station Shah Nagar and criminal case under Section 304-A of IPC was registered against appellant No. 5, Ammu Yadav. Thereafter, claimants/respondent No. 1 to 4 filed aforesaid claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 10,20,000/- against non-applicants.

(3.) Appellants as well as Insurance Co. denied the contentions of claimants/respondent No. 1 to 4. It is further pleaded that at the time of incident, tractor was being driven by appellant No. 2, Gokul and he was engaged in doing agricultural operations. He further pleaded that Kesri Yadav lodged false report of incident. It is further submitted that tractor was duly insured with respondent No. 6, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent No. 6 (non-applicant No. 3).