IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 496 of 2005 Decided on: 28.07.2011 Yash Pal …Appellant. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 6. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal by the owner is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby he absolved the Insurance Company and only held the owner of the tractor liable to pay the compensation. 2. The facts proved on record are that the deceased was travelling on a tractor. The case of the claimants was that 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. -: 2 :- he was travelling in the tractor alongwith his goods. The driver admitted this fact in his reply, but the owner disputed this fact. The owner was not present at the spot and, therefore, his denial is of no consequence. 3. Without going into the other questions raised, this appeal has to be rejected only on the ground that Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the owner in case a person is permitted to travel on a tractor. 4. In a number of cases, this Court has repeatedly held that no passenger can be carried in a tractor. In the present case, the insurance policy has been tendered in evidence by the Insurance Company. Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the insurance policy has not been proved in accordance with law. I am of the considered view that the owner who wants that liability should be fastened upon the Insurance Company cannot in one breath say that the Insurance Company is liable under the policy, but in the next breath claim that the Insurance company has not proved the insurance policy. If the insurance policy tendered by the Insurance Company was not the one which was issued to the owner, then nothing prevented him from raising this objection at that stage. The policy in question does not cover any liability for passengers. 5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the Insurance -: 3 :- Company could not be held responsible. The appeal is accordingly rejected. (Deepak Gupta) Judge July 28, 2011 (rajni)