SUBHASH CHAND Vs. BASSI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil misc. appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') have been filed against the award dated 21.06.2003, passed by the MACT, Alwar holding that the claimants-respondents Nos.1 to 6 were entitled to compensation of Rs.2,42,400/- in the aggregate together with interest @ 9% p.a. effective the date of filing of the claim petition, on account of death of one Liyakat in an accident occasioned by the rash and negligent driving of tractor No.RJ-02/1-R-1880, till the date of payment.

(2.) The facts of the case are that one Liyakat was engaged as a labourer for loading or unloading cement on a daily wage of Rs.2,00/- per day. Liyakat appears to have been on 07.06.2000 i.e. the date of the accident, engaged for the loading and unloading of cement being ferried from village Burja to Baroda Mav through Tractor No.RJ-02/1-R-1880 driven by Chhotey Lal and owned by Subhash Chand. After unloading the cement at village Baroda Mav, when the tractor trolly by which the delivery was made was returning to Burja, the accident in issue resulted from rash and negligent driving of Chhotey Lal. Injuries from the said accident to Liyakat then 18 years of age, resulted in his death. In the context of the aforesaid facts, the claimants impleaded the owner of the offending tractor, Subhash Chand, and Chhotey Lal the driver of the offending tractor as also the Insurance Company with which vehicle in issue was insured. On notice of the claim petition being served on the Insurance Company, in reply the Insurance Company took a defence of avoidance of the insurance policy on the ground that even though the tractor in issue was indeed insured with it under the Kishan Package Policy, yet it was being used for commercial purposes contrary to the terms of the insurance policy wherein it could only be used for agricultural purpose. It was further stated that aside of the tractor being used for an unauthorized purpose, detailed hereinabove, its use as a transport vehicle attaching a trolly therewith was also a palpable breach of the condition of the policy as the attachment of the trolly changed the very nature of the vehicle insured. Another defence set up by the Insurance Company was that the driver of the tractor in issue at the time relevant to the accident did not have the valid driving licence entitling it to avoid the insurance policy and liability thereunder.

(3.) The case of the insured, Subhash Chand was that no accident at all took place on 07.06.2000 and consequently, it was submitted that the claim petition being founded upon false facts deserved to be dismissed.