1 '^ HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR APPELLANT (Owner) •^ RESPONDENTS (Claimantt (Driver) (Insurance Coinpany) APPBLLANT (Owner) IV RESPONDENTS (Claimantl {Driver} (Insurance Conipany) MISC. APPEAL No. 76/2010 Basant Kuiaar Sahu, S/o Shri Damaru Sahua aged about 65 years, R/o vUlage Koliyari Post BhaMiara Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) (Registered owner of TYactor No. CQ No 04/DA 6908 & Trolley No. CG04/DA6909 Versus 1. Hemant Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Aghanu Ram Sahu, aged about 34 years, resident of vfflage Koliyary, Post Bhakhara. Tahsil Kiirud Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 2. Gaukaran S/o Shri Fnlsingh Sahii, aged about 28 years, resident of vfflage Koliyari, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 3. The^priental Insurance Company Limlted, Brarieh OfBce Dhamtari, Post and Distt. Dhamtari (CG) MISC. APPEAL No. 77 /'2010 Basant Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Dainaru Sahua aged about 65 years, R/o village Koliyari Post Bhakhara Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari(CG) (Registered owner of Tracfor No. CG No 04/DA 6908 & TroUey No. CG04/DA6909 Versus 1. Dhanasai S/o Shri Balsakhu Sahu aged abput 30 years resident of vUlage Koliyari Post Khakhara TahsU Kurud, Distt. Dhamatari (CG) 2. Gaukaran S/o SIiri Fulsingh Sahu, aged about 28 years, resident of vfllage Koliyari, Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari(CG) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Dhaiutari, Post and Distt. Dhamtari (CG) SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT: Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate, for the appellant. ^w' Xj\- •-•< ORDER ( 2S'-3-2010) 1. M.A.C. No. 76/2010 and, M.A.C. No; 77/2010 are being disposed of by this common order as both the appeals arise out of fhe same accident. 2. These appeals have been direcfed by the owner agatnst the award dated 28-10-2009 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claiihs Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari tn Claim case No. 26/2008and 37/2008 respectively. 3. Brieffacts ofthe case are as under:- 4. As per claimants, on 27-3-2008, tliey were transporting Gitti from Mohandi Stone Mines, village Koliyari to viUage RaMii by Tractor and Trolley bearing registration No. CG No 04/DA 6908 & Trolley No. CCX)4/DA 6909. Said vehicle tumed turtle. Claimants Hemant Kumar Sahu and Dhansai systained injuries in fhe said accident. They were immediately taken to Masihi Hospital, Bathena and then were referred to the Dr. V.K. Pandey, Orthopedic Surgeon, Dhamtari where they were treated. The claimants have filed ^applications under Section 166 oftheAct against the driver, owner and insurer ofthe said tractor and troUey clatming Rs. 10,35,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- respectively as compensation. 5. By filing the written statement, the appeUant/owner as well as respondent No. 2 /driver of the vehicle have denied the claims and submltted that on the date of accident, fhe said tractor was being used for agrieultural purposes. They have ^ ^- < also pleaded that the clatmants were not sitting in the tractor at the time of accident. The Insiu-ance Company by filing wntten statement specifically pleaded that the said traGtor was being used for non-agricultural purposes at the time of accident. Therefore the Insiirance Coiapany is not responsible to indemnlfy the insured. . 6. Leamed Tribunal on a closed scrutiny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made held driver of the vehicle responsible for the sald accident, assessed compensation of Rs. 78140/- and Rs. 1,21,685/- respectively and heldappellant/owner vicariously liable for payment of com.pensation, exonerating the Insurance Company froru its UabiUty to pay on fhe ground that fhe said vehlcle was bemg used for non-agricultural purpose in breach of condition of policy. 7. Shri Patel,leamed counsel for tfae appeUant would contend that leamed Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insuraace Company from its liability to pay compensation masmuch as fhe said tractor was being used for agricultural purpose at \he tune of accident: 8. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe appellant, perused the award iinpugned and record offhe Tribunal. 9. The clatmants have pleaded in their claim petitions fhat the offending vehicle was being used at the time of accident as usual for transportation of Gitti ifrom Mohandi Stone Mines to vUlage Rakhi. The appellant in para 9 of his statement has r^ ^ categoricaUy admitted the fact that fhe F.I.R. ofthe case was lodged by his son in which it was stated that Gitti was being transported for road work. Leamed counsel for Che appeUant faUed to point out any evidence su^esting that fhe oSendin^ vehlcle was used for agricultural purpose at tfae time of accident. . 10. In view of pleading of the claimaats and in view of the F.I.R. lodged by appeUant's son and after taMng tnto consideration overaU circumstances of fhe case, in the considered opiaion of this Court, leamed Tribunal has not committed any illegalily in holding fhe said tractor was being used for non-agncultural purpose on the date of accident and fhus fhe Insiirance Company is not responsible to indemniity the insured. 11. No other pomt has been raised by leamed counsel for fhe appeUants. 12. For tfae foregoing, the appeals being devoid of substance, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. \3. A copy of this order be placed in the file ofM.A.C. No. 77/2010. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge