UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SARDARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurer of the motor vehicle in question against the award dated 2nd August, 2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, in MAC Petition No. 83 of 1998, whereby, while allowing the claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 claimant, the Tribunal has awarded Compensation to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- in favour of the respondent No. 1-claimant and against the appellant.

(2.) Deceased Gita Devi died as she was engaged in the thrashing of the wheat through a Thrasher which was propelled with a tractor, which was insured with the appellant at the relevant time. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that after thrashing some wheat, the deceased Gita and her husband (the husband died during the pendency of the claim petition) asked respondent No. 5 Tara Chand to stop the tractor so that they may collect the wheat grain under the Thrasher. When deceased Gita Devi was in the process of collecting the wheat under the Thrasher, respondent No. 5 Tara Chand without giving any alarm, signal or indication in a rash and negligent manner started the tractor as a result of which the Thrasher came in motion. By this, deceased Gita Devi got wrapped with the belt and struck against Thrasher, which was admittedly being propelled with the help of the tractor. She sustained injuries, which ultimately became the cause of her death. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that the tractor in question could not be held to be the cause or the reason of the accident because the deceased Gita Devi received injuries while she was being wrapped under the Thrasher and that the tractor was being used only to supply the power to the Thrasher.

(3.) On going through the award impugned in this appeal. I find that the Tribunal has, by a very elaborate process of reasoning discussed the contours of the aforesaid submission because the Tribunal has taken note of the submissions made before it on behalf of the Insurance Company that even if the incident was deemed to be true and correct, it would not amount to an accident involving the tractor because the tractor was not in a moving condition and that the death had taken place because of the Thrasher. The Tribunal ultimately came to the conclusion, after referring to certain judgments on the subject, that the accident occurred because of the use of the tractor.