FATTI Vs. RAJMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned award dated 30.05.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding recovery rights to the respondent -Insurance Company, merely on the statement of the appellant that at the time of the accident, the tractor was attached to the water tanker and not the trailer. The learned counsel cites Narcinva V. Kamat and another v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and others, : 1985 ACJ 397, to contend that the insurance company cannot be said to have been discharged of its burden by merely putting a suggestion in the cross examination. He further submits that even if the tractor was attached to the water tanker at the relevant time, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability as the tractor and trailer were fully insured. He further argues that the water tanker would come within the definition of a trailer.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance company has vehemently argued that the tractor and the trailer were insured for agricultural purposes, therefore, the present appeal is liable to he dismissed.

(3.) IN the instant case, it has come on record that the owner of the tractor was transporting water to his diary at the time of the accident. The appellant, while appearing in the witness box as RW -1, stated that the water available was not fit for consumption. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that at the time of the accident, the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes, which is against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded recovery rights to the insurance company.