RADHESHYAM KUSHWAHA Vs. BABIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the award dated 25.2.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi in Claim Case No. 65/2004 allowing the application of respondents no.1 to 8/claimants filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and directing the owner and driver/appellants to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,67,000/- along with interest as mentioned in the impugned award and exonerating the insurer/respondent no.9 to pay any compensation, this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the owner and driver.

(2.) NO exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and looking to the short controversy involved the only point which is to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the insurer has been rightly exonerated by learned Tribunal or not. The finding of learned Tribunal in para 19 is that deceased was sitting as a passenger in the trolley attached to the offending tractor which was turtled and the deceased died in the accident and further the tractor-trolley was not being used for any agricultural purpose. Shri P.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that looking to the testimony of tractor driver Rajendra Prasad (DW-2) it is luminously clear that deceased was coming behind the tractor-trolley on a bicycle and on account of release of hook of tractor-trolley from the tractor the same was detached and it started moving towards rear side as a result of which deceased who was driving the bicycle crushed and has died and, therefore, the insurer cannot be exonerated and is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance on Bhupati Dwivedi Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company and another 2011(III) MPWN 37.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.