IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 249 of 2004 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Om Prakash Singh & another … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2004 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 88 of 1999, Om Prakash Singh Vs Darshan Singh & another whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,73,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11.02.1999 at about 05:30 a.m., Sri Om Prakash along with his wife Smt. Ganga Devi at Bazar Ginoni, Patti Pratap-pur purchasing the vegetables. A Tractor bearing No. UP02C/0990 along with trolley coming from the Kashipur side, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, suddenly, the tyre of the tractor trolley got bursted and the rim of the same hit Smt. Ganga Devi due to which she died at the spot. At the time of the accident, Smt. Ganga Devi was 30 years of age and used to earn Rs. 2,000/- by working in the Agriculture Farm. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation before the Tribunal. 2 3. The owner as well as the Insurance Company contested the claim petition before the Tribunal concerned by filing their separate written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues, which were discussed in great detail. 4. After hearing of the parties and perusing the entire material led by the parties, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition against the Insurance Company for Rs. 1,73,000/- in favour of the claimants vide order dated 07.06.2004. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on the point that the trolley attached with the Tractor was neither insured nor registered, as such no liability ought to have been fastened upon the appellant Insurance Company. He has contended that accident took place due to tyre burst of the tractor trolley and as the trolley was neither insured independently nor it was covered under the insurance policy of the tractor, therefore, the Tribunal has fell into error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation. 8. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. As per the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, the only controversy in this case is as to whether, the tractor 3 trolley comes under the cover note or not. In order to resolve this controversy, I have gone through the statement of Darshan Singh (D.W.1), owner of the tractor who has deposed that his tractor was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. along with trolley under ‘Kishan Package Scheme’ and he had paid the lump-sum amount of premium. This fact has also been supported by Sri D.K. Agarwal (D.W.3), Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. who has deposed in his examination in chief that the tractor was insured for household luggage and the premium was paid in lump-sum. The vehicle in question was insured from 28.11.1998 to 27.11.1999 and Rs. 1886.99 was taken as premium of the said tractor. This witness has also deposed that the tractor was insured under ‘Kishan Package Scheme’. Learned Tribunal has held that the trolley in the tractor was being used for transporting household goods. The trolley is insured along with tractor and if, the trolley is not attached with tractor the existence of the tractor for transporting the household goods cannot be said. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. 9. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In view of the above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 07.06.2004 passed by M.A.C.T./Additional District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 88 of 1999, Om Prakash Singh Vs Darshan Singh & another is hereby confirmed. 4 12. The statutory amount, if any, deposit by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 03.04.2008 ASWAL