BAGDI RAM Vs. INDRA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dtd. 3/12/2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 6/2018 (CIS No. 83/2015) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.10,60,720.00 as compensation to be recovered from the appellants (driver and owner) while exonerating respondent-Insurance Company.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award. It is submitted that the witnesses AW1-Indrabai and AW2-Dalchand have categorically stated in their statements that the deceased Madan Nath was standing on the side of road and was not sitting over the tractor at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that Madan Nath died as a result of being hit by the tractor, which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award amount. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned judgment and award may be quashed and set aside and the appellants may be exonerated from their liability.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondentInsurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. It is submitted that in the Ex.1-FIR, Ex.2-Chargesheet as well as Ex.3-Naksha Mauka, it is mentioned that the deceased Madan Nath was sitting on the tractor and died by falling from the tractor. It is further submitted that the informant (Prabhulal) of the FIR was the real brother of the deceased, who specifically stated in the FIR that the deceased died due to falling from the tractor. It is further submitted that even though the tractor was insured, no premium was charged for passenger and thus, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the statement of material witness-Tulsiram has not been recorded. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited the following judgments: