(1.) Being aggrieved by and insured with respondent No. 3. Further the award dated 29.4.2006 passed by the case of the appellants was that by the time First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, when the offending tractor reached the pre- Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 102 of 2005 mises of Krishi Upaj Mandi at Mandsaur, whereby the claim case filed by appellants at that time because of rash and negligent was allowed in part and Rs. 2,97,500 has driving of respondent No. 1 the offending been awarded and respondent No. 3 was trolley turned turtle with the result Dilip exonerated on the ground that offending Singh died on the spot. In the claim case vehicle was insured for agricultural pur- compensation was claimed from the res- pose only, the present appeal is filed. pondents. The claim case was contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the
(2.) Short facts of the case are that appel- offending tractor was insured with the res-lants filed a claim case before the learned pondent No. 3 for agricultural purpose and Tribunal alleging that the deceased Dilip trolley was not insured. It was alleged that Singh was travelling in a tractor attached since the deceased Dilip Singh was a fare with trolley bearing registration No. MP paying passenger and the vehicle was not 14-A 5641 on 20.7.2004 along with the being used for agricultural purpose, there- goods for its safety. It was alleged that the fore, the respondent No. 3 is not liable for offending vehicle was being driven by res- payment of compensation. After framing pondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 of issues and recording of evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim case and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,97,500 for which break-up is as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_541_ACJ_2010Html1.htm</FRM>
(3.) Learned Tribunal further observed that since offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose, therefore, respondent No. 3 stands exonerated. Being aggrieved by the award passed by learned Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed.