1 FA 1970,1971.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1970 OF 2010 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1971 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Paranjape, Advocate for Resp.No. 1 Mr. G.R.Ingole Patil, Advocate for Resp.No. 2. .................................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.R. Ingole Patil, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. The present Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani [ For short, ‘ the Tribunal ’ ] thereby fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimants. 2 FA 1970,1971.2010 3. The factual matrix is not disputed. It is not disputed that the vehicle i.e. tractor which is insured with the present appellant, was involved in the accident with the motor vehicle in which the claimants were travelling. Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in fact the claimants do not suffered any permanent disability and had suffered only contusion, still the Tribunal has respectively awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- which is exorbitant. The claimants were in hospital only short duration. As such, such an amount could not have been awarded. The learned counsel further contends that the driver of the tractor was holding licence to drive the tractor only. In the present case, the trolley was attached to the tractor and is a motor vehicle and the person holding the licence of the tractor is not entitled to drive the tractor with the trolley attached to it and as such there is breach of policy. The learned counsel referred the Judgment in the case of M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. V/s State of Karnataka and others reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court – 3428. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ingole Patil, learned 3 FA 1970,1971.2010 counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the Tribunal has properly considered the pains and sufferings and awarded meagre amount of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively to the claimants in respective Appeals. The driver of the tractor was holding licence is not a disputed fact and as such it can not be said that there is a breach of condition. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the impugned Judgment and the evidence on record. 6. The factual matrix is undisputed. The Tribunal has considered the pains and sufferings of the claimants. They have received abrasions, so also have to suffer mental shock and agony. The amount of compensation awarded is not exorbitant but the modest amount of only Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 80,000/-has been awarded as a lump-sum amount under all the heads. 7. It is also not disputed that the driver of the tractor was holding valid licence to drive the tractor. The claimants were not the passengers on a trolley of the tractor. The 4 FA 1970,1971.2010 claimants were travelling in a motor vehicle, to which the tractor had given the dash. The Judgment of Apex Court in case of M/s Natwar Parikh referred supra will not be applicable to the present case. 8. In light of above, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to the claimants and fastening the liability on the present appellant. The First Appeals as such are dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] knp/FA 1970,1971.2010