HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR, J. M.A. fCl No. 376 of 2006 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Balaram and others. Versus ShankarSai and another. ORDER Pronouncement of order .09.2010 tk R.L. Jhaiiwar ge r" trfi r*. •r "^ ^& •vr-, "yc''' HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLESHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. M.A. (Cl No. 376 of 2006 APPELLANTS Glaimants RESPONDENTS Driver Insurance 1. Balaram, S/o Narottam Prasad, aged about 35 years. 2. Tula Ram S/o Banmali Dewangan, aged 37 years. 3. Mahatma, S/o Chandu Sahu, aged about 45 years, 4. Ramsingh, S/o Malikram Kanwar, aged about48years 5. Samaru, S/o Ledagu Kumhar, aged about eoyears 6. Mansaram,S/o Bharat Dewangan, aged about 40 years. 7. Mantora, W/o Bharat Dewangan, aged about 60 years. 8. Kanshram, S/o Bharat Dewangan, aged about 38 years. All are the R/o Village-Turma, tahsil-Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Through their power of attorney Balaram S/o Narottam Sahu, R/o Village-Turma, tahsil- Baloda Bazaar, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Shankar Sai @ Buddhi lal, S/o Baharat Dewangan, aged about 36 years, R/o Village-Turma, tahsil-Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur. 2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Line, Baloda Bazaar. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri S.K.Guha, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Aditya Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Saurabh Sharma, counsel.for respondentNo.2. NoneforrespondentNo.1. ' ORDER (Passedon (1^.09.2010) Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2006 delivered by the 1st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazaar in claim case No.59/2006 whereby the claim of the claimants has been rejected; the appellants-claimants have filed this appeal. .____ ^ 2. Brief facts of thecase are that on 19.01.2004tractor bearing NO.C.G.04/ZG/6720 and trolley bearing No.6721 was driving by Shankar Sai to sell the paddy bags, loaded on the tractor, to market. On way to market, the tractor-trolley turned turtle due to damage in front wheel. Shankar Sai sustained injuries. A report was also lodged against its driver ShankarSai. 3. Appellants/claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal for getting compensation of Rs.2,24,000/- on the ground that tractor was being used for agricultural purpose and huge amount was incurred to repair the tractor; on the date of incident, the tractor - trolley was insured with respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement stating thatincident took place due to damagein front wheel, resulting into the tractor-trolley turned turtle and thus, he is not responsible. Respondent No.2 has filed its written statement stating that vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose and the appellants have violated the terms and conditions pfthe insurance policy and accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of its driver- respondent No.1. Therefore, the insurance company is not responsibleto pay compensation to theappellants. 5. After affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, the learned Tribunal has, after minutely evaluating the evidence available on record, rejected the claim of the claimahts on the groundthat on the date ofincident tractor-trolteywas plying against termsand conditions ofthe insurance policy because paddy bags belonging to other parfy were loaded on their tractor, which was being taken to market to sell the paddy bags. 6. Learned counsel forthe appellants argued that the learned Tribunal did notconsiderthe evidence addueed by them that the tractor, loaded with paddy bags, was being taken to market to sell the paddybags in the market, which shows that the tractor was being used for agricultural purpose. He further argued that accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of its driver and as a result thereof, frontwheel got damaged as such the tractor turned turtle. Lastly, it was argued by him (!II?IR'"ni?;?3!ffi':^^i-®!|s!iE;?7B^@ff^s:Sri~!;w3^s^-;^f!; ';!K£2?;:.."''' that on the date of incident, the tractor was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company,therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation. 7, On the other hand, advocatefor respondent No.2while supporting the impugned award argued that the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants does nbt inspire confidence and trustworthy. Aecording totheir evidence, it is clear that they were taking the paddy bags on their tractor to sell the same to the market and that paddy bags were belonged to other persons. It has also come in their evidence that the appellants used to earn Rs.2000/- - Rs.3000/- from that tractor, which clearly shows that on the date of incident, the tractor was being used for commercial purpose and by doing such the claimantshave violated the terms and conditions of the policyof insurance. The Tribunal has rightly rejectedtheir claim and impugned award does not callforanyinterference bythis Court. »^ 8. I have heard learried eounselforthe parties at length, perused the impugned award including record ofthe Claims Tribunal. 9, It is evidentfrom F.I.R. Ex.A.1 that in ordertosell the paddy in the market the tractor-trolley was taken on hire. It is also evident from the F.1.R. that tractor-trolley was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver - Shahkar Sai, due to that front wheel got damaged, as a result thereof, tractor turned turtle. A.W.1 Balaram stated in his evidence that offending tractor-trolley belongs tothem and was insyred with respondent No.2. He admitted that paddy was loadedin that tractor-trolley and one Shrawan was going with the vehiele to sell the paddy in the market. On way to market, incident took place due to crack of splendors and the'body of vehicle was fully damaged and an amount of Rs.65,000/- was incurred for its repair In cross-examination, he hasstated that he used to receive RS.2000/- per day as income from trtgt tractor-trolley. A.W.2 Shrawan Kumar has stated in his examination-in-chief that the claimants used to earn Rs.3000/- as monthly income from the tractor-trolley. Santosh A.W.3 denied that tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. . A.W.4 Nandram Dewangan hasalso stated that Balaram usedtoearn Rs.300/- per hourfor giving it to others' field. 1 r ;t..i.' iiiiiEtiiinr^'.i:Bfri?-ii;'Ff -?ss®¥4?^ y s---^fe •1' '!'->. —. S'B^^j^^^^ • ..^^ • -^•:';': 10. Ex.N.A.02(1) is the insurance policy wherein it shows that the tractor is for agricultural purpose, as evident from the evidence of G. Raja Ravikumar N.A.W.1,who stated that tractor-trolley was insured with them and the tractor would be used for agricultural purpose. He admitted that the owner of the tractor trolley has filed O.D. claim andupon enquiry it was found thattractor was being plied on hire, therefore, the insurance company rejected O.D.claim. 11. Thus, frpm theabove evidence, it is clear that on the date of incident the tractor was insured with the insurance company, respondent No.2 and it is also apparent from the above evidence that the tractor was plyingon hire basis whiGhis agaihst the policy terms and conditions. On the date of incident, the tractor was being used for transport of paddy to market and that paddy belongs to others whereas the tractor belongs to the appellants. The appellarits have also not beenable to prove that whether paddy which was loaded on tractor-trolley belonged to them or not. It is also clear from the evidence of Balaram that he used to send the tractor on hire basis for ploughing others' field. The appellants have not produced any original bills relating to repair of tractor and in the absence of such bills it cannot be assessed from oral evidence that how much moneywas spent. 12. On close scrutiny of the evidence, thelearned Claims Tribunal has rightly rejected fhe claim of the appellant that the appellants have not been able to prove that the tractor - trolley was being used for agricultural purpose and it is clear that tFactor—trolley was being used for eommercial purpose, which is against the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. This apart, in support of oral evidence, no such bills were produced as to howmuch amount was spent in repairing the tractor. 13. From the foregoing reasons, l do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order requiring interference by this Court. 14. Consequently.the appeal has no merit and is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. gd/l R.L. Jhaiiwar