XI-HC—78 ^CS( r^|<q|^<q, ^)TO^/1<S, («f01'y^< H . A .(^^ 'qro^r ^(^••"•••'-•••••"•••••••••••^••^••^•••—'•y^ 2007 3?T^T x?^? ( 4c<fl<s<<i^ ) ^) '317^T ^T R;rli^ ^T^T'STT^T ^RW ^PTTW^f^T ^TT^T APPELLANT/: (Non-applicant No.2) RESPONDENTS/: (Claimants) (Non-applicant No.1) ct)i<Lif^i^1vi 4-ii^i<:iT ^fe1tsi> <P»i-^i< i7'3tRm3T^"?r Ved Ram Sahu, S/o Jagsao Sahu, Aged about 60 years, R/o Vdlage- Kewatadih Tangar, Post- Bharari, Police Chowki- Pachpedi, Thana- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Owner of Tractor No.Cd OA-1 130, Tractor trolley No.CGI OA-11 31. ^ersus - Umashankar Bani (Satnami), S/o Late Ravilal Satnami, Aged about 50 yeare. Smt. Ansuiya Banl, Aged about 45 yeare, W/o Umashankar Bani (Satnami). Ku. Gayatri, Aged about 6 years, D/o Santosh Satnami, Through- Guardian Umashankar Bani [Nana (maternal grandfather)]. Ku. Preeti Bai, D/o Santosh Satnami Through- Guardian Umashankar Bani [Nana (maternal grandfather)], Aged about 4 years. All are R/oVillage & Post Risadaa, Tahsil- Masturi, Thana- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Shashi Kumar Sahu, S/o Ved Ram Sahu, Aged about 23 years, Driver of Tractor No.CG10A-1130. Tractor iroijey No.CG10A-1131. R/o Village- Kewatadih Tangar, XI-HC—78 anisr ^T ^i^i TT^T 3TT^T ^RW 3^cT ^II-MI^, ^Tfl^^Ko, is|<7'>l'H^< 'RTWTT *<4|cb .....A.:...Q^62^ ^ 3n^?T 175TO (li^l<!<<^) ^^TTW Tlf^r 3?T^T (Non-applicant No.3) (Miscellaneous appeal under Set Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Bhadoo and Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha. 24-8-2007 Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, couns|el Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, coui Mr. Saurabh Sharma, coun; Heard learned counsel for L.C. Bhadoo. J: Appellant Ved Ram Sahu effect from 3-3-2005 i.e. the date o <^Nfd^rl TTF^;ff '^,'fe1^ <F^^l< '^stRm^n^T Post- Bharari, Poltee Chowki- Pachpedi, Thana- Masturi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) Hew India Insurance Company, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Link Road, Bilaspur Branch, Bilaspur (C.G) tion 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act 1988) y. fortheappellant. [isel for respondents No.1 to 4. ^ei for respondent No.6. tljie parties for final disposal of ttiis appeal. owner of the tractor, has preferred this appeal under Section 173 ofthe f^otor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved by the award dated 16-1 1-2006 pajssed by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Cfaims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claj Tribunal after holding the own< m Case No.226/2006, whereby learned |r of the tractor, the appeltant herein, responsible for payment of compei|isation, awarded compensation amount to the tune of Rs.3,34,000/- along wit^ interest at the rate of 6% per annum with flling ofthe daim petition. question was insured for agricultu In para 8 of the award, t|ie Tribunal has held that the 'tractor in al purposes with non-applieant No.3 New XI-HC—78 3n^T ^T fqii<=n | ^T^T ^rr^T 5t)^i<^ ^N^, 75€T^|<Mt<7i)^, ^>T{1<-1<1<S, ic)C'»l^^< ^P^IT gh^llcb ..y,,ft.,.,^.3.62.^ 2007 3H^?T ^^ ( ^y^^ ) '^TTW^f^T 3:n^T India Assurance Company, wher^i question was carrying passengers|1 was not insured, therefore, there of the tractor is responsible for pay|ment sas at the time of accident, the tractor in for election campaign for which the tractor a breach of policy, as such, the owner of the compensation amount. Mvas Learned counsel for the a< there Ss no evidence on record to! being used for election campal^n evidence and basis, iearned Trib^al the tractor in question was beirtg deceased was travelling along wi^h campaign. Therefore, the finding On the other hand, learn^d Company argued that the docum< inquest Ex.P-2 & merg intimation in question was being used in elecjtion placed reliance on the judgment Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata 3591. Having heard learned cour|sel record. In this case, no eyewitne^ any pariy to the matter. Even d< rescued themselves from adducins has not adduced any evidence by <+l^fd41r1 ^TR^f ^f ,'feTzt <F3l^i< ^^tRm^iT^T ipellant - owner argued that in this case establish that the tractor in question was at the time of accident, without any has arrived at a wrong conclusion that used for election campaign, and the other persons in the tractor for election 'the Tribunal is perverse. counsel appearing for the Insurance »nt available on record i.e. F.I.R. Ex.P-1, :x.P-3 ?pedfical1y mention that the tractor campaign at the time of accident. He the Apex Court in the matter of Orientat hukla & Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW sel for the parties, we haye perused the >s to the accident has been examined by 'iver & owner, the appellant herein, have evidence. Even the Insurance Company »roducingany eyewitness to the incident. ^' XI-HC—78 ^i IIN^ 3^" r^l^l^, ^-cfl^KS, (s|01^^< 4 W^V <b*«cb ..y......A,,(C^.6.^••^ 200? an^RT "^^ (4c<flG<<^) ^^ J^ f^^Jch J ^T^T ^TI^T^RT^ ^^TTW^f^T ^TI^T pNrt The claimants filed the clairb Vehicles Act, 1988. In second been mentioned that on the date was travelling in the tractor & trolle^ for election campaign of Kaushik election campaign to Sumoli whiclt Shashi Kumar Sahu, the tractor wa|s and met with accident near others sustained injuries, Atmarar^ driver, but he was declared broughjt in his reply has denied that the campaign at the time of accident, No.3 has submitted reply to the for election campaign. Dhaurlabhata tradtor As has been mentioned ealrlier, been examined by either ofthe pari|ies, point based on the documents ava|ilable has been mentioned earlier, the second part of para 16 of the clain|i being used for election campaigr deceased was travelling and he al| information report (Ex.P-1) was mentioned in the said F.I.R. that) question was going for election prepared on the information given 4)l^lfd4lr1 "HF^ff '^,'feTst <p3l^i< ^^TRm^n^T petition under Section 166 of the Motor of para 16 of the claim petition, it has of incident i.e. 19-1-2005, the deceased ofthe appellant herein, he was travelling (umar Khande, fhe tractor was going for was being driven by non-applicant No.1 being driven in rash & negligent manner turn, in that accident, Atmaram & was taken to Masturi hospltal by the dead. Even though the appellant herein in questlon was being used in election |the Insurance Company - non-applicant that 'yes' the tractor was belng used effect |rlier, nb eyewitness to the accident has >, therefore, the Court has to decide the on record. In the first instence, as tlaimante themselves have mentioned in petition that the tractor in question was at the time of accideot in whteh the l|so went for election campaign. The first (|>dged by one Ramakant ^f^ has also at ttie time of accident, the tractor in liampaign. In Ex.P-3 merg case diary t>y Ramakant it has been mentioned that ^ XI-HC—78 371^T ^T ^ijsh TT^T 3?n^T ^RT^T f^l II II II 111^' ^m^ 3^£T^l-qi^'q, ^Tfl-M^Ko, tc)01<-l^< ^TR^T ^hWvh M..:A..(C^2,. 3?T^?T V^f: ( 4?<^<^ ) ^ 2007 '^TTW^ftn 3:n^r on 19-1-2005 Ved Ram Sahu's ejection campaign of the of the me|nber met with accident. fractor was going to VHIage: Sumoli for of B.D.C. and the tractor in question into thlat In the matter of Oriental raised about the admissibility of case diary especially the F.1.R. Js would not be held to be proved time of tendering the documents if no objection was raised by the turn around and raise contention been proved. Negativing the abovje is not a case where irrelevant the parties but the only objection i^ of givlng evidence in Court was have altowed certain statements to| evidence, it is not open to them to court of appeal that the evidence Applyjng the same principle matter, if we scrutinize the materia) P-1 was tendered into evidence objected by the owner. In the F.1.1 Ex.P-3 which was also exhibited counsel, in both these documents that the tractor in question was in the election campaign when <^i^f<n^l'i ^i^<?iT '^\f^Tsi' <p3i'^i< '^3Tl?m3TT^T Itisurance (supra) also an objection was do|cuments that the documents of the poltce admissible in evidence, the documents ur^less the contents are proved. But at the evidence and marking them as exhibits t)arties, then they cannot be permitted to the contents ofthe documente have not documents, the Apex'Court held that "it evic|ence had been let in with the consent of that the procedure followed in the matter correct. When the parties themselves 1 be placed on the record as a part of their |urge later either in the same Court or in a p^oduced was inadmissible". nbt ahd arhd beihg tHe |laid down by the Apex Court in the above on record in the Tribunal's file, F.l.R. Ex. exhibited as Ex.P-1 and that was not L as well as in the merg case diary report no objection was raised by the owner's it has been mentioned by the informant used for carrying the persons involved tractor in question met with accident. XI-HC—78 |»NNllNIIINNNIi^ ^y Soma •S^Sf ^l^l^, ^>TQyjl<5, {sf<^t'(-)'4,< _M...&.1C:. ^n^n- ^m?R ••^ 2007 3:TT^?T ^^S ([J^\^^ ) '3TT^T ?FT f<-|ich ^T8H ^TR^T^TRW ^^n^R "^prf^n 3:n^T Moreover, the claimants themselve^ at the time of accident, the tractof campaign. In order to refute the Company or the claimants, neither |the box nor the owner entered into evidence aft)ove Therefore, we are of the Tribunal that there was a breach insured for agricultural purposes, carrying the persons in election perverse and based on legal sounc( Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ct)l^f<rt<fl<l <-jH<ylt* ^f^^l <p3l^l< ^T ^tRm <3TT^T have mentioned in the claim petition that in question was being used for election contentions raised by the Insurance driver has a8t appeared in the witness c^nsidered opinion that the finding of the |of policy i.e. the tractor in question was jwhereas the same was being used for <|;ampaign at the time of incident, is not reasonings. In the result, we do not findjany merit in this appeal, same is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismi^sed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •\