CHENA RAM Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by non-claimant-appellants, owner and driver of offending vehicle, against the award dated 22.06.2005 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in Claim Petition No.59/2005 (29/2003), whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,24,400/- to claimant-respondents in a death claim, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

(2.) Shri Mahendra Goyal, learned counsel for appellants, has argued that respondent insurance company has been illegally absolved of its liability on the ground that trolley attached with tractor, is not part of the tractor, which was insured with it, whereas the trolley itself formed part of the tractor and the insurance company is liable for payment of the awarded amount of compensation for any accident, which has occurred on account of trolley attached to tractor. It was argued that the evidence on record suggests that the trolley turned turtle in right side when driver of tractor wanted to save a maruti car, and the liability therefore could not be fastened upon the appellants. This cannot be considered to be a breach of trust making the appellants liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel referred to the claim petition and argued that therein it was specifically pleaded that deceased was going from his village Netadia to Merta for purchase of seeds for agriculture purpose with the appellant driver Chena Ram in the tractor in question and therefore it cannot be said that the purpose for which deceased was travelling in the tractor was not an agriculture purpose. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of NAW-1 Harmeet Singh, witness of the insurance company, and argued that this witness in cross examination, has denied this fact and stated that he did not know as to for what purpose the deceased was travelling in the tractor. Learned counsel also referred to the statement of NAW-2 Arun Singhal, who was a witness of the insurance company, and argued that this witness has stated that insurance of trolley for agriculture purpose is not necessary, which means that if the tractor was insured, the trolley was not required to be separately insured. Learned counsel argued that mere tractor cannot be put to agriculture use. A tractor is capable of being used for agriculture purpose only if it is attached with trolley. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited Jodhpur Vs. Smt. Deewa and Others,2003 ACTC 644 and New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Khima Ram and Others,2003 ACTC 241.

(3.) Per contra, Smt. Archana Mantri, learned counsel for respondent insurance company, opposed the appeal and argued that the tractor was insured with respondent insurance company for agriculture purpose only. Neither deceased Lakshman was labourer of the appellants nor in any way was he related to them so as to say that he used to work on their agriculture field. In reply to the claim petition, it was specifically stated by the insurance company that as per the document on record deceased Lakshman and his wife Gyarsi were sitting in trolley attached to the tractor. Trolley was not insured with the insurance company. Learned counsel referred to the statement of AW-1 Gyarsi wife of deceased and submitted that this witness has stated that her husband used to run a 'chhakda' (bullock-cart). The evidence has proved that goods of a tent house were loaded on the trolley, which cannot be considered to be an agriculture purpose. Learned counsel argued that the tractor was insured for agriculture purpose with only one driver and premium was charged only for that purpose. The statement of NAW-1 and NAW-2 cannot be read out of context. NAW-1 Harmeet Singh, the investigator, has stated that during the investigation he found that goods of a tent house were loaded in the tractor. NAW-2 Arun Singhal has categorically stated that insurance company did not charge any premium for the passengers and that the trolley was not insured, therefore, his subsequent statement was inconsequential.