moH COUST oy CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT (Owaer) RESPONDENTS (Claimantl (Driyerl (Insurance APPELLANT (Owner) RESPONDENTS (Claimantl (Insurance Companv) MISC. APPEAL No. 76/2010 Basant Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Damaru Sahua aged about 65 years, R/o village Koliyari Post Bhalchara Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CQ) (Registered owner of Tractor No. CG No 04/DA 6908 & TroUey No. CG04/DA 6909 Versus 1. Hemant Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Aghanu Ram Sahu, aged about 34 years-, resident of vUlage KoUyary, Post Bha]diara TahsU Kurud Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 2. Gaukaran S/o Shri Fulsmgh Sahu, aged about 28 years, resident of village Koliyari, Tahsil Kun-id, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 3. The Oriental Insiirance Company Limited, Braach Office Dhamtari, Post and Distt. Dhamtari (CG) MISC. .-U^PEAL No. 77/2010 Basant Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Damaru Sahua aged about 65 years, R/o vlllage Koliyari Post Bhakhara TahsU Kiirud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) (Registered owner of Tractor No. CG No 04/DA 6908 & TroUey No. CG04/DA 6909 Versys 1. Dhanasal S/o Shri Baisakhu Sahu aged about 30 years resident of vUlage Koliyari Post Khakhara TaIisU Kurud, Distt. Dhamatari (CG) 2. Gaukaran S/o Shri Fulsmgh Sahu, aged about 28 years, resident of viUage KoUyari, TahsU Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 3. The Oriental tosurance Company Limited, Branch OfBce Dhamtari, Post and Distt. Dhamtari (CGj SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESBNT:- 4 Sliri R.S. Patel, Advocate, for the appellant. v~ s.< --Y ORDER ( 2S'-3-2010) 1. M.A.C. No. 76/2010 and, M.A.C. No; 77/2010 are being disposed of by fhis coininon order as bofh the appeals arise out of the same accident. 2. These appeals have been directed by the owner against the award dated 28-10-2009 passed by Additional Motor Accident Clatms Tribunal (FTC), Dhamtari in Claim case No. 26/2008 and 37/2008 respectively. 3. Brieffacts offhe case are as under:- 4. As per claimants, on 27-3-2008, they were transportiag Oitti from Mohandi Stone Mtnes, vfflage Koliyari to village Ralctii by Tractor and TroUey bearing registration No. CG No 04/DA 6908 & TroUey No. CG04/DA 6909. Said vehicle tumed turtle. Clatmants Hemant Kumar Sahu and Dhansai sustained injuries in the said accident. They were immediately taken to Masihl Hospital, Bathena and then were referred to the Dr. V.K. Pandey, Orthopedic Surgeon, Dhaintari where fhey were treated. The clalmants have filed appUcations under Section 166 of fhe Act against the driver, owner and insurer ofthe said tractor and troUey clauntng Rs. 10,35,000/- and Rs. 11,00,000/- respectively as compensation. 5. By filmg the written statement, tfae appellant/owner as weU as respondent No. 2 /driver of the vehicle have denied the clalms and submitted fhat on fhe date of accident, fhe said tractor was being used for agnciiltural purposes. They have ^ ^ ^' also pteaded that the clalmants were not sittmg m the tractor at fhe time of accident. The Insurance Company by filing written statement specificaUy pleaded fhat the said tra.ctor was being used for non-agricultural purposes at fhe time of accident. Therefore the Insurance Company is not responsible to indeianify fhe insiired. 6. Leamed Tribunal on a closed scrutlny of evidence led, material placed and submissions made held driver of fhe vehicle responsible for the said accident, assessed compensation of Rs. 78140/- and Rs. 1,21,685/- respectively and held appellant/owner vicariously liable for payment of compensation, exoneratuig the Insxirance Company from its liabilily to pay on the ground that the said vehicle was betng used for non-agriciiltural purpose in breach ofcondition ofpolicy. 7. Shri Patel, leamed coiinsel for the appellant woiild contend fhat leamed Tribiinal has erred in exoneratuig fhe Insurance Company from its Jiability to pay compensation inasmuch as the said tractor vcas being used for agricultural piirpose at the time ofaccident. 8. I have heard leamed counsel for fhe appeUant, perused the award impugned and record ofthe Tribunal. 9. The claimants have pleaded in their claka petitions that the ofiending vehicle was being used at fhe time of accident as usual for transportation of Gitti from Mohandi Stone Mines to viUage Rakfai. The appeUant in- para 9 of his statement has '^t \-, categorically admitted the fact that the 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 the appellant failed to point out any evidence su^esttng that the ofFendtns vehicle was used for agricultural purpose at fhe time of accident. 10. In vieW pf pleading of fhe clatmants and in viewr of fhe F.I.R. lodged by appeUant's son and after taking into consideration overall circumstances of fhe -case, in the considered opinion of fhis Court, leamed Tribiinal has not committed any illegality in holding fhe said tractor was being used for non-^ricultural purpose on the date of accident and fhus the Insurance Conipany is not responsible to indemnify the uisured. 11. No ofher point has been raised by leamed coiinsel for the appellants. 12. For fhe foregoing, the appeals being devoid of substance, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed. l3. A copy of this order be placed in the file of M.A.C. No. 77/2010. Sd/- N.K. Aganval Judge