{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.451/2002 Trilok Ram & Ors. VS. Ramdeo & Anr. Date of order : 5.8.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE Mr. Vinay Chhipa for Mr.Sajjan Singh, for the appellants. Mr. G.Sankhala, Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being C.M.A. No.742/2002 because both the appeals arise out of one claim case and impugned one award. 2. This is a misc. appeal filed by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short called “the Act”) against an award dated 7.2.2002 passed by MACT, Sojat in Claim Case No.90/98, whereas C.M.A.No.742/02 is filed by owner of offending vehicle. 3. In the appeal filed by claimants (C.M.A. No.451/02), two questions are raised, first is that compensation awarded by Tribunal to claimants for the death of one Shyam Lal aged 29 years totalling Rs.2,45,000/- is on lower side and hence it has to be enhanced, so as to make it a reasonable one. Second is that Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the Insurance { 2 } Company from the liability arising out of accident thereby erred in confining it to only driver and owner of offending vehicle. 4. So far as connected appeal (C.M.A.No.742/02) is concerned, it is filed by owner of offending vehicle, wherein it is contended that Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability arising out of accident and secondly compensation awarded to claimants is on higher side and hence it should be reduced. 5. This is how two questions are raised in these two appeals at the instance of claimants in their appeal and owner in his appeal relate to quantum and liability. 6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss both the appeals as in my view, both have no substance. In other words, the Tribunal committed no illegality in passing the impugned award and hence it does not call for any interference. 7. It is a case of death. On 27.6.99 Shyam Lal aged around 26 years, a labourer was going in one tractor/trolley bearing No.RJ14.R.6962. It was owned and driven by respondent No.1/NA-1 and insured with respondent No.2/NA-2 at the time of accident. This tractor/trolley was carrying slabs and they were being taken to a place called Bhildeva. On its reaching there, while off loading the slabs, one fell on Shyam Lal and he died due to falling of slab on Shyam Lal. This gave rise to filing of claim petition by his legal representatives claiming compensation for his death giving rise to filing of this appeal. It was filed against the owner/driver (insured) and insurer. It was contested by non- applicants. According to insurer, since the tractor/trolley was insured essentially for agriculture purpose and the same was being used for a different purpose at the time of accident and hence the insurer cannot be held liable to suffer any liability arising out of this case. In other words, the main defense of insurer was that { 3 } since the tractor/trolley was being used at the time of accident contrary to purpose for which it was insured and hence it would amount to committing breach of term of policy thereby exonerating the Insurance Company to suffer any liability in case of accident occurred while using the insured vehicle. Parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal as observed supra partly allowed the claim petition and while awarding a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. It was held that tractor/trolley was not being used for agriculture purpose but was being used for carrying slabs from one village to another and hence it was a case of breach of policy thereby exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability. It is against this award, two appeals are filed i.e. by claimants and other by owner of offending vehicle. 8. It has come in evidence in no uncertain terms that tractor/trolley when met with an accident was being used for entirely different purpose than the one for which it was issued. It was being used for carrying slabs from one place to another. One can not dispute that carrying slab in trolley from A place to B is not an agriculture purpose but it is essentially a commercial one as rightly held on evidence by Tribunal. It was thus completely a different purpose then the one for which the vehicle was got insured. It therefore, did constitute a breach on the part of insured of the term of policy thereby entitling the insurer to claim exoneration from the liability arising out of accident. It is not the case of claimants or insured that insured had paid additional premium covering all kinds of risk including the present nature of risk which caused the accident. In the absence of this defense, it is not possible for this Court to hold that risk of this nature was also covered and indemnified by Insurance Company. 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, the case law relied on by learned counsel for the appellant i.e. (1990) ACC 20 { 4 } (Raj.) is of no assistance because of subsequent decisions of Supreme Court on this issue See (2004 AIR SCW 5116 and 2007 ACJ 1909), which supports the case of Insurance Company. 11. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the same too does not call for any interference because looking to the age, 26 years, occupation (skilled labour) of deceased and monthly income, a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- cannot be said to be either on higher side or lower side. It is just and reasonable calling no enhancement/reduction at the instance of both the appellants i.e. (owner and claimants). 12. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals are found to be devoid of merit. Both are therefore, dismissed resulting in upholding of the impugned award. No cost. (A.M.SAPRE ),J. /tarun/