1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.165 OF 1994 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. District Ahmednagar (Through its Divisional Manager) at Aurangabad, Authorized Signatory ..APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Chhagan s/o Kalu Pardeshi Age:Major, occu. Agril. R/o Bhoyagaon, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 2) Hirabai w/o Chhagan Pardeshi Age: Major, occu. Agril. R/o Bhoyagaon, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 3) Vishwanath s/o Eknath Salunke (appeal abated against Respondent No.3) 4) Dattatraya s/o Vishwanath Salunke, Age: Major, occu. Agril.r/o Newasa District Ahmednagar. 5) Ashok s/o Laxman Raut Age:Major, occu. Driver r/o Malewadi Khalsa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENTS --- Mr.VR Mundada Advocate for the appellant; Mr.NB Narwade, Adv. h/for Mr. NK Kakade Mr.SD Kotkar, Adv. h/for Mr.CK Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2; Mr.AG Kanade, Advocate for Respondent No.4; 2 Respondent no.5 served. --- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 25th June, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1) Heard learned Counsel. 2) The insurance company feeling aggrieved by the Award of learned Member of MACT, Aurangabad in MAC No. 128/1989 is in first appeal. During the course of submissions, it is informed that Respondent no.3 – Vishwanath s/o Eknath Salunke, is no more, having expired three years ago. Consequently, the appeal abates and dismissed as against Respondent No.3. 3) The controversy revolves to the deceased, aged 20 years, travelling at the mud- guard of the tractor at the material time on 15.4.1989. It has been reflected in the evidence of Dattatraya that deceased was a casual labourer on the tractor. If this is read in context with the statement, Exh. 49 (FIR to police), it supports to the same as according to owner – Dattatraya, on fateful day, it was at around 9.00 a.m., the tractor was driven by driver Ashok with deceased Vijay Chagan Pardeshi and Sanjay, as these three persons were proceeding to the agriculture field No.152 for ploughing. This follows that deceased Vijay was a labour with the 3 owner Dattatraya. With the the assistance of both the Counsel, I have gone through the insurance policy. It indeed refers its comprehensiveness to cover the risk of the driver, third party, the vehicle and any person. To my mind, the insurance covers the liability of the insurance company to meet the claim arising out of the death of Vijay, who expired when he was moving with the tractor driver on the tractor. Though there is controversy as to whether deceased was in the trolley or at the tractor, however, observation of the learned Judge, that deceased was in the trolley, in the fact situation, appears to be incorrect. The FIR disclosed that deceased was travelling on the tractor. In the situation, the contention that the liability of insurance company, as has been fixed by the learned Judge needs to be reconsidered, will not be applicable and available. The appeal to this effect is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ( K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa165-94 Authentic copy (BD VADNERE,PS)