MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.14 OF 2007 *** Against the judgment and award dated 22.02.2006 and 30.06.2006 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Naugachia, in Claim Case No. 218 of 2004. *** 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., Branch Manager, Purnea, Insurer of Vehicle No. BR-38-4187 (Tractor) ….Appellant/ Opposite Party No.2 2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chandralok Complex, Ghantaghar, Bhagalpur …Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Both through their duly Constituted Attorney, namely, Dibakar Bag, posted as Deputy Manager in their Regional Office at 6th & 7th Floor, BSFC Building, Fraser Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, Town & District- Patna …Appellants/ Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 Versus 1. AMINA KHATOON w/o Md. Akbar a r/o village- Khudna, P.S. Korha, District- Katihar, at present r/o village- Naugachia at N.H.31, P.S. Naugachia, Dist.- Bhagalpur & …Respondent/Claimant 2. Bhubneshwar Prasad Sah s/o Late Anant Lal Sah r/o at- South Maheshri, Jogbani, P.S. Jogbani, District- Araria, Owner of Vehicle No. BR-38-4187 (Tractor) …Respondent/opposite party no.1 *** For the appellants : Mr. Abul Kalam & Mr. S. K. Sinha, Advocates For the respondent no.1: M/s Randhir Kr. Singh & Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocates *** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.02.2006 and 30.06.2006 respectively passed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Naugachia, in Claim Case No. 218 of 2004, by which a sum of Rs.3,35,900/- with interest @ 7½ % per annum has been allowed to the claimant, who was the wife of the deceased. 2 2. Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that in fact that tractor and trailer were being used to transport labour and, therefore, it would not cover the risk of the owner under the circumstances. He points out that from the facts of the First Information Report it is evident that sacks of potatoes had been loaded on the tractor of trailer and thereafter this occurrence took place. He, therefore, contends that since the tractor was not being used for ploughing or for threshing the court below was wrong in fastening the liability of the insurance company on account of death of the husband of the claimant in the said accident. 3. However, from the First Information Report, I find that nowhere has it been stated that the deceased had boarded the tractor/trailer as a commercial passenger and it is in fact apparent from the First Information Report that the vehicle was being used for the ancillary purpose of agriculture, inasmuch, as it was being used to transport the agricultural produce. Undoubtedly, the deceased lost his life when the tractor turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer and, therefore, the claimant was rightly claiming compensation. 4. Under the circumstances, I see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The claimant will be at liberty to withdraw Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this court as condition for admission of this appeal. The court below will also disburse the rest of the compensation amount to the claimant within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this judgment. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court Patna. Dated the 13th December, 2010 NAFR/ JA/-