1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Subhash & Anr. Vs. Omprakash & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1396/2010) Date of Order :- May 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Sunil Kumar Singodiya, for the appellants. The appellants, who happen to be the driver and the owner respectively, have challenged the award dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.1), Bayana, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,72,000/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation to the claimants-respondents. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the contention that the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company, the respondent No.3, from its liability to pay the compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned award. The learned Tribunal had framed issue No.3 as under : आया वƠ दघ[टना वाहन शैÈटर चालक के पास उƠ वाहन ु को चलाने का वैध एंव ूभावी वाहन चालन अनु£ा पऽ नहȣं था तथा पािलसी कȧ शतȾ का उãलंघन करने से बीमा कàपनी ूितकर हेतु उƣरदायी नहȣं है ? 2 In its discussion of issue No.3, the Tribunal has clearly held that the FIR with regard to the alleged accident was based on the statement of the Injured, Vijendra, who in his statement had clearly stated that the tractor trolley was full of “Bajri” and he, along with Dharmendra, the deceased in this case, were travelling on the said tractor trolley along with other persons. Because of the rash and negligent driving of Subhash, the appellant No.1, the trolley turned turtle. Because of this accident, while Dharmendra expired, other received injuries. The learned Tribunal has meticulously discussed the evidence of Vijendra, Mukesh Pareek and Ashok Kumar. It has also given cogent reasons for not believing the testimony of A.W.1, Om Prakash, who happens to be the father of the deceased. After meticulous discussion of the evidence, it has concluded that since Dharmendra was travelling as a gratuitous passenger along with Vijendra and others, and since the tractor was being used for non-agricultural purpose, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment to the claimants- respondents. Since the Tribunal has minutely discussed the evidence, which is available on record, the award does not suffer from any illegality, or perversity. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-