NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. Vs. RAMLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 20.5.1995 passed by the teamed Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 38/1991. This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in holding the company liable to pay compensation for the death of one eight years old child Suresh who was trying to run behind the Tractor bearing Registration No. RPM 7278 alongwith 5-6 other children in the Village Sanwada on the fateful day of 4.4.1991 which was being driven by the respondent No. 2 Santoshi son of Shankar Lal and when the said child failed to ride on the said running tractor and in the process got entangled himself between the mud guard and the tyre of the said tractor as a result of which he received injuries and died.

(2.) The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 79,800/- for the said death of Suresh in favour of the claimants which was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company, the present appellant.

(3.) Mr. Shah for Mr. Mehta appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the appellant because in the claim petition itself, it has been stated by the claimants that the said boy was sitting on the tractor with his 'Mama' Shyam Lal on 4.4.1991 when the said tractor which had come to work at 'Thrasher' was going to take the trolley and on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2 Santoshi, the said boy fell down and got trapped between the tyre and the mud-guard and was crushed, whereas in the statement of AW-1 Santoshi it has come that the said boy alongwith few other boys was running behind the tractor and were trying to sit on the said tractor. He further stated that another eye-witness Shyamlal has not been produced or examined before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has erred' in awarding the amount of compensation as there was violation of the conditions of the policy as the deceased was being a gratuitous passenger sitting on the said tractor which was to be used only for the agricultural purposes and met with an accident for which the Insurance 'Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation.