VAIDYANATH SINGH Vs. GULABKALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 29. 6. 1989 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa, in M. V. Case No. 30 of 1984 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to claimants-respondents against the appellant, being the owner and driver of the tractor, exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this appeal are that on 22. 5. 1984 the deceased Maha-deo, who possessed a grocery shop in his village Ghoura, was hauling wheat bags by tractor-trolley No. MBA 7213 of the appellant to Mangawan. The tractor was being driven by the appellant in rash and negligent manner, as a result the tractor turned turtle while crossing a nalla at about midnight and as a result the deceased came under the trolley and was badly injured while other occupants of the trolley escaped injury. The deceased was admitted to Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Rewa, where he succumbed to his injury on 21. 7. 1984.

(3.) THE wife, daughter and son of the deceased filed the claim case against the appellant and the insurance company, respondent No. 4, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,08,000/- on the ground that the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of his death and he had income of Rs. 1,000/- from his grocery shop. The claim case was contested by the appellant and his father and the insurance company. The appellant and his father jointly filed written statement, denying their liability to pay compensation. They denied that the tractor was being plied for commercial purposes. The deceased was neither travelling in the tractor nor his bags were being carried in the tractor-trolley. They had been falsely implicated on account of group rivalry in the village. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of his death and he had no income, much less Rs. 1,000/- from his grocery shop. The insurance company in its reply denied the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the tractor was being driven by the appellant without any valid licence and in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The tractor was being plied for commercial purposes and not for agricultural use. Therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of evidence brought before it awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the claimants-respondents.