. WW mm (W) 55’ 111 200 mmm WW wm ’%st‘man%¥r §i§WELE SiiRi EEiREi§DRA Mi$iiRA. J. M A. 85:5 OF zuvé Ay¥ELLA‘N7T ww f51‘81 1011 Insurance C0. Ltd L'hreuch .D-:r.a'n.ch " b" 1v axager, brancg — Amnmapur, D1stt. ig {FF} \ 4*?) -.) ...J.,‘ KE§EQN B£P§1§§ l V (‘ga*p _. Dahr‘in Finnnwafirww _ V‘Pafm " ‘* Farmer N {lE ' 1am 511313721 ban, W/o. Nannu, Qo‘Ptl abeut 40 VPQN Jvmy, {East's—Pand“v, ucc upauon— i—lousehold w PUD O about 50 vcars, Occupatlon—Owner of R Paiden f of grrDohda, BO. Mail ukh Tah. nmpur, Ulsxt. Korma {cu} 2E .05 . 2U0’7 S1111 §udlllf AgTaVFal, COUilf Nous appears for responda min AJx’MPI‘aSad, counsai fc H68ICL 'l‘ms app€aJ under §€ction {naemalter refen‘a‘t to as ‘Act? 30111 of January 2006 passed i Actdmonai Motor Accidsnt Cia Korea wherein- a Sum of RS. 1 16gal héh‘s bf dEC€ased Ma11ga1 GRPRJ Manager, ’l‘ne Ungntai NaDnu b‘lo. Karemsay, Age about 42 . ., Vuv Lu . Luauu ¢ vvv ur-u uuL; Ninhar Q1‘nch Amati a“: ~ ‘5‘“ F2 mh F1; hubir Sic. I ml ior me appehant. 1110.1(‘35’ 1‘ mspondent No.8. [J\ 1’73 of the Motor V€hicies Act, 1988 1s dnfctacl agamst the awart‘t dated n Ciaim CaSe No‘ 42/2004 by the Lms ‘1‘r1buna1: Baniunthpur, Dis‘CL 74,500j— has be€n awardzzd to the. 5m who diEd on 23.08.2004 in a motor vallicm acck‘ient 1‘11VO1ving iractor No. CG. 16A/‘0 136 allfi Tl‘oiiev FS/246 2/2007 50,000. x VVC Tractcxr ‘ 311d m w WW, Wm, W Wm "(5% m 200 mmm ’2'- WWW %@W %w’§man%sr \No. CGIé/T} 137 owned 13V respondent No.3 Raghubir Singh and msureci bv the appahant for ihc rtiiévant p61i0d. This appeal has been prc compally on the grounct that unposmg nabmty upon 1116 appe U1€ 6V1Cl€11C€ aVaHaDlE 011 TECOTG. 1 1n qusstmn was bang uséd 101* 11 was mSuma only for agricuitur fiECEaSECi Niallgal Sal W’aS SltUJ V€J11CIE-Tl‘act01~ 111 “7111C.“ 110 0116 1 and thirdlv that. tho deceasod was appellant submits that from the L€aljl€d COullS€l IOI‘ Ulé evidence of appellant, witness N032 Dhaxamjeet it is Clear that he alongwith deceased Mangal Sai were sitting on the mudguard of the tractor when the same overtmned resulting in the death of Mangal 58.1. oi exp-1 1t ls submittea that. me policy was issued under the Kisaan Package Policy for agricultural puiposes however the vehicle was being used for transporting of iron bars as is evident from the pleadings in claim petition and First mformau'on Roport of EX.P- 1. He Koiorring to the. dooumem r runner argued that from reply of the owner himself it would be evidenit that the deceased was not engaged as a Labourer with the vehicie Vien’oci by tho appenant/111sura11ce me 'l‘mbunai was not Justmed 111 flailtfmsuranco Company, as from t i8 mallifostlv Cioar that the vohiclo )n-agncultural purposes, wuoroaS it a1 purposes. At tno’rolovant Ume, 1g, on me mudguard oi oHendmg s permitted to sit oxcopt the chiver a gratultous passenger. however the tribunal ignoring the admisswn 01 the owner—respondent No.8 has arrivednat the I y GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 50,000. 1 ) \ \ mm (W) Q WW,WWI§,W Wm . 87L 200 mm (W) 1WWW WW f§¢m m $3€faum “3’; Conclusion that 1116 d€C6as<id was travdlmg in the vemcle as a ‘ Labourer. ReHaHCE is piaced in '116 matier of f§7atianai insurance Co. Lfzi. Vs. Jaqtiisk & Gti’wi‘s r€pom€d in 20(15 AC‘J 1i57 and in the miatter of granch Ié/ian e Nai‘ioimi Iusurmice Cowgany Eta?» Vs. Ganpathi {is Gtiwrs. Rmi 0116.61 in AB? 200?{?VTGC] 246 (W4. K l} V)V A A JFLb». On The othmgha’nd éounSEi for respondeint No.3/0WI16r categoricaiiv dEmed that fha decgassc‘i was travaih’ng 1'11 the said vehick with Amarnath 311d that the Whick was bemg used IOr traluspertmg of iron bars for {he purpose of conSn’uction of road. The d€caassdwvas not traveliing in tho said vehicie as 1abourer nor the vehic‘le. was being used for the commorciai pulmooesi. in fact, tho vshicie had gone to fotch feniiizor from Baikun’thpur, it ovortumeci from cn‘lvart in 1:116 11‘VE1‘ Whom docoased Mangal 5ai was taKmg batn, ,7 ho camo under tho troiiey of tractor, sustainai i111urios and oiea. Learnooi counsoi for tht rosponoiont No.3iownor submittod that ho hover permitted driver Alharnath to cany any passongor in» the tractor and if it is found thét tho docoasod was in fact travelling 111 tho tractor in that caoo “ho samo wao dono without oxpross pormission of tho rospondont and thoroforo, in those circumstanooo rospondontoannot ho hoid for any breach of poiicy condition. I have hoaxd ioarnod counsoi for the. parties and pomood tho documonts and evidenco avaiiahie. on record. i WW, m,W mamm -‘1—1 WW %€!W %3if%m‘a1é¥r Aftér appraisai of evJidsnce and p1€ading$ of the respective paxtias paliicularlv from Th3 evidence. of Dharamjed who had b.3611 ax‘amhmd bv tha claimant E Mallgai Sai was in fact, sin $6 time of accicient and fro Evig‘iont that dacea$€a Mang Labourer of tho said vemcio ( From perusal OI the Ajaypal Gupta, exammoo b vohicia was illsumd under nowhera momions that tn purposes though this Witne Uactor was insured for agiiciiturai purpose. However considering the statement of Ajaypai Gupta cannot be acceptett. Ls A.’W’.—'2 it is 6stabiiShod that (isceased ing over the mutiguard of the tractor at m the repiy of respondent No.2 1t ls also a1 Sai was not engagec‘t by the owner as tractor) . mm v1 200 mm (13W) clocument of EX.D—1 and Statement o: y the appeiiant it is observed that the the Kisaan Package Policy: However, 1t i tractor was insuret‘t for agricuiturai s5; has stated in his deposinon that the and the document of EX.D~l, the same However taking into cc usideration the document of EX.D~3 and D—4 which is a certificate of registration of the offending venicte, it is evident that the sitting cépac ity of the tractor has been shown as one inchiding driver and considering the repiy of owner it is also estabiished that the decea labourer. d was not engaged by the owner as in the matters of instaramze Gawain; Ltd. if. Jg’gdish as Gtiters (Supra), High Uourt mug ewaair‘y «if tmeter is «mtg far ‘1 ol MP. white deailing with the identical situation has heid that “the t t t t 1-Hc—7s WW,W,W W Vb.R 200 3mm (gamma) WW1¥~wm ataifawm mmm .g. Eirivef aim“ éeat‘h af the pagietiger traweiiing ia t§1e tractot is mat eaver‘eé umiar the Act. Fmm tiue‘msurcmce paéicy m1 recmr'é €t’ is eiear thai the tractw was fnsarezi aw Ac€ msurance ami’ pmmium far ra’si‘c e3f ériwr ig: peak: arm ginee pwsenger is nm‘: permissibie m a tracwr, t§1erefare, the insurarace eampany cmzww: ize heiei Emie $6 imimmify t§1e passenger éraveiiizag if: a €raet@r. I33ai€ng Secfigm' iégf‘ 7m} (a; of the Act it has beers. §aeM that “éiw vehicie m being us d iii breaah af specified candi‘itian afgyMicySi \ in the. mattars of Bramrk Manager, Nai‘ianai Insuranee Ca. Lw‘. (Supra) ii is smtecl that “pi a noi‘ suiw€antime$§ by pméum‘rig dawmenwf yak, pay ceri‘ificaE' etc. — Ewera, cia'ver af Waeatw' has siem’ec’é faaé ti°mt aeceased warking as a cieaner-éi caaié be? swig; €ha§ éecgasesi was 3‘? eiit’ug (w gratuitaus passieager- gurw’d @f friimnai fastening iaikiiitg an mmramce Campawy m imgmnify mime? figs? éeat‘h o ‘ deceweé-Eiwie m be gei mag- @wyaer @f iraet’ar §wi¢§ EiaEaEe i pay the camyeywatiém? Th6 arguménts advan 1 011 b6hah" of the responc‘ient Ilo.3iowne1‘ {hat the owner 116v :x‘ pannitted ihe chivel‘ to cemy-any paSSengar and therefore if he tied m1}? passenger ill tim Tractor, ho did so without express permissh 11 of the owner callnot be accepted, m View of the pieadings of e respondept No.3 and evidence avajia‘ble on recorft.’ Relying upon the judgme Cited by the appeiiant {hie Court is of the opinion that the vehicie queetion was being driven r he c : c ‘ 1 n ‘ ' b t -Hc 78 WW,WW,W W W 1..v1 200 Wmw§wl WWW _c,, d‘mia‘ 111 braacn of poiicv condii mimguarct 01 me tractor gum" gratultou$ passgngm‘. 111 fuss hibunal that the dticeasec‘i wa vemcis 1s comxary to €116 €vid61‘ £116 same cannot bo sustained. In the rosult tile. appoai momfled and the appeiiantwi sausrymg me award. Tho appe amount oi compensau'on airoad 1.5. m6 respondent No.3. Mumiwm $Wm 1011 'as 13:16 deceasad was sitting in Tho moreiors ms status was that of 3 cu‘cumsitances tho fmding of tho s u‘avéuing as labourer in the. said 1C6 :aVEuiaDlE 011 1‘EC01"{1 Ella Th61‘6f0l‘6 ( , 1s allowed. 'Ihe impugned award is 3 exonerated from the 1iabiiitv of lant shail be. entitied to recover the. y paid from the owner of the vehicie Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra Judge