GYASO BAI Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arising out of claim petition filed by the appellants Gyaso Bai and Pratap Singh raises a short question.

(2.) IT appears that on 23. 9. 1991 the deceased Kamal Singh was going on the tractor-trolley Nos. HMT 3511 and 6167 to offer prayer at Karehwale Baba. Other persons were also sitting in the trolley which belonged to respondent No. 2. It was being driven by respondent No. 1 Mahendra Singh. The respondent No. 3 was the insurer. On the way, at the curve of Girwai Naka due to rash and negligent driving of the driver the tractor-trolley overturned as a result of which Kamal Singh died. A report was lodged at P. S. Janak Ganj, Gwalior and a case was got registered. Kamal Singh was a student of 12th class at the time of his death. The claimants being parents of the deceased claimed a total sum of Rs. 8,52,000 as compensation. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 absented and the case was contested by the insurance company, defendant No. 3. The defendant admitted the accident but alleged that the tractor-trolley was insured for agricultural purposes only. It could not be used for taking passengers. The learned Tribunal after taking the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent conduct of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It awarded a sum of Rs. 82,000 as compensation under various heads. The claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the claim amount to Rs. 95,000 only.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants did not raise any argument whatsoever with respect to the enhancement of compensation. He confined himself to only one argument. He urged that as tractor-trolley could also be used for carrying of passengers vide notification No. 4-22-83-VIII dated 30. 9. 1985, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. He urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should also be against the insurance company, as admittedly, the tractor-trolley was insured with the insurer. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also contended that the liability could not be fastened on them alone. The insurance company cannot be exonerated. No other argument has been placed. The learned Counsel for the insurance company, on the other hand, argued that there is a specific contract that the tractor-trolley was to be used for agricultural purposes only and not for carrying of passengers. Consequently, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability. He placed reliance upon Harnam Singh v. Gajendra Singh, 1995 MPWN Vol II, Note 145 and Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh v. Phoolibai, 1993 ACJ 586 (MP ).