HIGH COURTLOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANbRAKAR, J Appellant ^ Wwv^-- '^- Respondent M.A. fONo. 958/2007 Laxminarayan, S/o Budhram aged about 45 years, R/o Newra -Tilda, District Raipur, C&. (Owner of the vehicle Tractor bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 ZG2462 Vs. 1. Hemabai, Wd/o Parmeshwar Yadav, aged about 35 years. 2. Shashikant, S/o Parmeshwar Yadav, aged about 17 years. 3. Ku. Shashikala, b/o Parmeshwar Yadav, aged about 13 years. 4. Ku. Chhaya, b/o Parmeshwar Yadav, aged about 8 years. 5. Budhram Yadav, S/o Kanhaiyalal Yadav, aged about 65 years. 6. Birajobai, W/o Budhram yadav, aged about 60 years, Respondent No. 2 to 4 are minor represented by their mother and naturai guardian Smt. Hemabai, Respondent No.1 All respondent No. 1 to 6 are R/o Village Rajiya, Post Devri, Tahsil Tilda, District Raipur, C&. \.l. 7. Chandrabhan, S/o ^han^iyaram Sahu. R/o Village Rajiya, Post-Devri, Tahsil Tilda, bistrict Raipur/C.G. ^-. (Driver of the vehicte Tractor bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 ZG 2462) 8. United Insurance Company Limited, Through - Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, C.G. (Insurer of the vehicle Tractor bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 TJa 2462) 9. Ratanchand S/o Ja9dish Ram Sahu, R/o Village Khudmudi, Post Chhatod, Thana Newra, District Raipur, C.G. (Owner of the vehicle Trolley bearing Regd. No. C.&.04 ZG 3558 Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri Satendra Sahu and Shri K.K. Dewangan, counsel for the appellant Shn' Anand Gupta, counsel appears on behalf of Shn' Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 8 Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No. 9 ORbER (13th June, 2011) This is owner's appeal for dischar9ing of the liability of the compensation awarded by the 14th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide awarddated 11.05.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 25/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 5,85,000/- claimed by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6, unfortunate father, mother, widow and minor son and daughter of deceased Parmeshwar Yadav, by filing a claim petition under- Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death in the motor accidenton 24.04.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,69,600/- as compensationalong with interest © 6/0 ll!N fri£A i€ ^^*^-,.. ^fe., •^\ •^' 1 !1 ^^p^ f."^.. "'^^' .€' ^'^.^' ^%^^ T.' L per annum fro the date of filin9 of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 3) Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that deceased Parmeshwar Yadav died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.04.2006; the accident o(;curred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor Trolley bearing registration Nos. C.6- 04ZD/3558 and CG-04/ZG-2462; as the above offending vehicle Tractor Trolley on the date of the accident was used other than the agricultural purpose in breach of the policy conditions, the owner of theoffending vehicle was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. 4) ShriSatendra Sahu and Shri K.K. bewangan, learned cqunsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding excessive compensation of Rs. 2,69,600/- against the appellant, inspite of the fact that respondent No. 8/Insurer has failed to prove that there is any breach of poticy conditions on account of theuse of the offending vehicleother than the agricutturepurpose. However, Jearned counsel for the appetlant submitted that the vehicle was used for household work because the said vehicle was Lised in marriage of nephew of the appellant and driven byanother nephew, therefore, it can not be said that the vehicle was used for other commercial purpose or any other purpose. In fact,no remuneration was paid for use of vehicle to the appeltant. Though liability was fastened on the appellant for payment of compensation, there is no fundamental breach of terms and conditions of poli'cy as alleged by the respondent No. 8/Insurer. Learned counsel also argued that the Tribunal has erred in nat fastening the liability on respondent No. 9 to pay the compensation because he was the owner of the Trolley, which .M ^*... ^ i-C^ ^'^fSy' ^\. '•^^p"t'parl 1 ts ^"y^'. .';. "€^'^' Ss) also involved in the said accident, and in fastening the liability to pay compensation only on respondent No. 7 and the present appellant. He further argued that learned claims Tribunal has not appreciated the claim of the claimants and pleadings of the appellant in its true perspective. The award is even otherwise erroneousand contrary to thetaw in respect of fixing liability for payment of compensation on present appellant and requires interference. 5) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No. 9 and Shri Anand Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 8, United Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor, which was being driven by the respondent No. 7 Chandrabhan himself at the time of the accident, on theother hand supported the award. 6) Now I shall examine as to whether the tiabititY fastened on the appellant by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Respondents No. 1 to 6/claimants have examined two witnesses namely Hemabai (AW/1) - claimant and bhaniram (AW/2) eye-witness before the Tribunal in support of their claim. Dhaniram (AW/2) has specifically stated in his evidence that on the date of incident when he was going in the Tractor by Joading the dowry articles of mqrriage, the deceased Parmeshwar was sitting on engine. Dhaniram (AW/2) also stated that at about 8 O'clock at night the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver Chandrabhan. This fact has not been rebutted by the appellant/non-applicant No. 2 in cross examination of Dhaniram (AW/2) and even Mannulal Yadav non- applicant No. 3 (NAW/1) has stated that when the Barat was returning/deceased Parmeshwar was sittingon the Trotley and at the time of accident he fell down from Trolley and died. Dhanirom (AW/2) has specifically stated that at the time of accident he wassitting on ^' ^i-^tfe, ^' that particular Tractor, thus, the evidence of bhaniram cannot be disbelieved. According to insurance poli'cy, there is no mention about the other person, except the driver for which the liability was mentioned in the policy. In the present case, deceased Parmeshwar was a labour as per pleading of respondents No. 2 to 6/clai'mants. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the liability of the insurance company. 8) On a close scrutiny of the evidence and from perusal of Insurance Policy (C/2), it is clear that the insurance policy is meant for agricultural purpose and not for any other purpose. On the dateof incident the vehicle was used for Barat and carrying dowry article, therefore, the liability was fastenedon the appellant for payment of compensation by the Tribunal and no interference is called for in this appeal. 9) For the foregoing reasons and considering the evidence of claimant Hemabai (AW/1) and bhaniram (AW/2) -eyewitness, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. R.N. Chandrakar Jiidge /ijay