F.A.O.NO. 674 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 674 OF 2010 Date of decision:6th September, 2010 Jile Singh and another .......Appellants Versus Smt. Lal Kaur and others ........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate, for the Insurance Company. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The appeal is by the owner and driver for making them liable for the accident that resulted in death of a person in a tractor. The contention of the claimants was that the deceased was sitting in the tractor, it turned turtle and the person died. It is too well known a position that a tractor is not designed to carry passengers other than a driver and the insurer's liability shall be only for a third party claim or a claim by the driver or his representatives for claim arising out of the accident. A passenger in a tractor cannot secure any benefit against the insurer. 2. The insured had, therefore, a case to contend F.A.O.NO. 674 OF 2010 2 admitting the accident but insisting that the deceased was a pedestrian walking on the kutcha path and the tractor turned turtle on a rainy day and the deceased got crushed under the tractor. This was evidently a plea which conflicted with even the claim of the claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that normally the owner would only be interested in denying the accident itself but in this case the accident was admitted but he had given the true version that the deceased was a pedestrian. There cannot be a plea which is truer that the version of the claimants themselves. If they had brought about an admission that the deceased was a passenger in the tractor, the owner was taking a plea in conflict with such a version. The reason is obvious. The owner had his own axe to grind where he was only interested in securing indemnity from the insurer, who will become liable only if it were to be contended that the deceased was not a passenger in the tractor but a pedestrian. 3. The defence of the owner and the driver was rightly rejected and the Tribunal has made the owner and driver liable for the claim arising out of the accident. I sustain the award and dismiss the appeal filed by the owner and the driver. The owner's liability shall be vicarious to satisfy the claim against the driver also. The appeal under circumstances is dismissed. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 6th September, 2010 Shivani Kaushik