COURT OF JUDICATURE : bIVISIQNBENCH -T^- SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ &. HON'BLE V.K. SHRIVASTAV^, .J, (0 No.. 542 of 2. Sanjeev Khunte S/o Abhe Ram Khunte aged 25 years (Driver of the offending Vehicie) R/o Viiioge BQfoudj PS Sarseeva &istt,Rdpur (CG) Abhe Ram Khunte S/o DhariTiu Khunte 55 years (Owner of the offending v©hic!e) R/o Viliage Babudi PS Sarseeva Distt.Rdpur (C6) Versus '^ 1) Rakhi bai Widow of Late Sammeia! Manhar Caste Satnami 30 years, 2) AAinor Ravi Kumar S/ Jate Sammeiai aged 10 years, 3) Minor Ku.Seema ' D/o icte Sammei'ai oged 2 years, Above minor No 2 & 3 throuqh their Guardian mother Rakhi Bai Wido^ of late Sammelai olj R/o ViSage Babudi PS Sarseeva bistt Raipur (CG) 4) • Bajaj Aliianz ^cneral Insurance Company Ltd, M4 (O No. 549 of Sanjeev Khunte S/o Abhe Ram Khunte oged 25 years caste Satnami/ Driver of the offending Vehicle Abhe Ram Khunte S/o Dharmu Khunte aged . 55 year, o^ner of the offending: vehicJe, Both R/o Viiiage BaioudE PS Sarseevan Distt.Raipur (C&) Versus '!» Om Prakos-h' S/o Nand Kumar Satnami aged' 14 yeors through' <5.uardiars Father Nand Kumar • S/o -Bhanga Satnam'i aged . 35^. years . R/o Vjjiage Lakhyridih •PS Disft. RQipur (C©) 2. Bajaj Allianz . '©enerai' Insurcnce Corripany Ltd Branch Office First FJoor •. Chouhan Compiex, Rajkumar Co!Ie9€LMS Sho^ Room, Rdpur- Distt,Raipur (C6) Shri KN NanQfe, counse! for the appellants. None .for the respondents, OR/A.L (Passed on 20th March, 2007) The foibwing orai order of the Court was by 'J. The instant'appeais2. under Section 173-of.the A4otor Vehicle'Act 1988 (henceforth r!the Acf{) are d'irected'against the-award 28.07.2006/passed by. First Additionai Motor 'AccidenfCSaim Trjbunal, Biiaspur (henceforth !ithe TrJbuna!11). 2) On 18.04.2006, Same Lai, Om Prakash and nurnber of 'persons were-'r€^turnjn9 from' barat on .a tractor-trojiey No. C(5-04-D-6164'& (for short "the vehide").. Appeihnt No.l" Sanjeev .Khunte was driving .the vehicle. As a resuit of. his rash and negligent driving/the vehicle turned'turtIe.'-Same Lai, Om Prakash and others fe!! down'fromthevehicle and were injured. Same Lai sustained fata! injuri.es and • succumbed ^ to th.ose. Appeiiant No.2 is owner of the vehi-cie and'the vehicie insu'red , with respondent- Bajaj AHianz fenerai Insurance Company Limited.. Lega! representatives of Same La! • fi!ed an • •ap.pSication under Sectlon 166 of the Act. Om Prakash'aiso filed separate'appijcation under Section 166 of. the Act Botn the appSications were filed for awarding compensation against appeibnts nol &.2/and respondent-Insurance Cornpany, who-are driver, owner and •jnsurer of the vehicle respectiveiy. . the appjications registered as Cidrn. No,163 & 166/2006 respectlyely. - 3) ' Both the appeliants and respondent-Insurer contested the ciairp. .-The appeiiants .'took a defence that'when appeihnt No,l dnving the vehicie, coraing back, on way vehicie .was stopped by La! ^Om.Prakash and nurnber of persons, after^ stopping the vehicle, ali of theni forcibiy bo.arded .it. The vehicie carrying. a!! persons rnet with an accident, Lal/Om Prakash and others fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. They further that-appelbnt No.l did-not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligen.t manner; even otherwise, the, 1 iy l yehicie is insured with respondent/BaJaj AIiia.nz Insurance Company; o.s such, .for payment of compensation, responsibility lies on insurer, On.the other hand, respondent/Bajaj,AI!ianz Insurance Co-mpany that the vehicle was.insured oniy for agricuitural purposes. carried a number of persons, who.were merfibers of b.arat party to the place of rYiarriage, and after cererriony, carrying ai! .those •person.s in that'vehicie coming. back to vi!iage, on way the accident took 'phce. The vehicie was'not'insured for commercia! purposes,therefore, appellants comrnitted breach of policy, and hence, insurance company is not liable to pay cornpensation. 4) Tribunal the ora! evidence adduced by the and aiso considered. the documents produced before it; and heid that w'hen the vehicle met v^lth an accident,'lt was .carrying 40-50 of barat'party; the Tribunai further held that, at the time of-iricident, the vehicie was not in use for agricuiturai purposes. Incom'e of Same La!.(-sirice .not proved, therefore, a notional income of fts,2,000/CT per nionth has been tnken for To establish that Om Prakash suffered- permanent. disabiljt/, the.re. •• no lega!' evidence before the' TribunaL The . Tribunai- in'these. circumstances, exonerated respondent/Bajaj Alijanz Insumnce Co.mpanY an^_ the against the appeilants.as below : a) Lossof dependency . b) Funeral/sufferings Totai Cas®.No.l66/2QQA a) . For pain.'.and suffering b) Medical c) Diet Tota! Rs.3,06,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.3,16,000/- fts.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.12,000/- 5).. Learned counsel for the appeilants' contended that Tribuna! erred .in ^ exonerating respondent/Bajaj AIIianz Insurance-Company from reimbursement "of: the award'and a!so erred by awardlng .compensatio.n to the cjaimants on higher 'side. 6) Witness Rakhi Bai, Jagdish in their .statement deposed that - La! with barat .party on the vehicle • retuming on the.same vehicle. Omprakash abo corroborates the story.'From the stateme'nt of appeliantNo,! and'from'one.of his witness Tularam, it is clear that Same La! and other persons. boarded on his vehicle and co.m.ing to vilbge in that vehicle/ 3oth the introduced a story that Sarne Lal and ot.hers fordbly boarded the vehicie;- When barat party carried to the piace of marriage, obvious enough that •tjne barat party wii! retum after.ceremony by that vehicie, therefore, it is difficult to beiieve that on return barat par'ty forcibly boarded the vehicle. From the statement of .ciaimants' and appSying-principIe of preponderance of'probab-iiily, as well.r^po^t, it.was provted that from'.vilbge itself'barot.party -was-carrie^ llNlfr' / u.^.u. ,A place of marriage and after c-eremony the vehicie carrying of barat party retuming back when the. accident- tooft phce.' 7) Tribunai appreciated th^ evidence meticuiousjyand ^abo considered the prjncipje' of . preponderance of probabiJity,. non-examlnation of and thereafter recorded. his findings, From the materia! on record as above,. the fjndings recorded. by the Tribunal.do not suffer from any infirmit^ or jitegality whjch-may caIFfor any interference. 8) .' .Undisputedly, the vehicie was insured for agricultura! purpose. It proved that the vehicfe .used 'by the appeliants for otherthan. a9ricultura! purposes, therefore, appeiiants themseives .committed breach of condition of ;the insumnce policy, they themselves'are iiable for paying the compensation an.d Znsuronce Company cannot be burdened with the.rejmburseirient of award for the.fauSt of appelJGnts. 'Learned .Tribunai very correctly the Insuronce Company from paying the compensation* .9) To estabtish. income of th©deceased Same La!,.no evidence adduced. Therefore, the. Court took notionaj income fts.2,000/- pc^r.iTionth and having considered the age of the deceased^who was'at the time of incident 32 .years,. by adopting mu!tlp!jer rriethod, caiculated of dependency and a!so .albwed amount towards other heads. . The of ^s^" Rs.346,000/" on the death claim, cannot be said'.to be on the higher side. So .far as compensati.on to.Om Prakash is concerned, he isa'mJnor boy of 14 years, who .sustained Injuries in the said-accident. Therefore, cn various heads/compensation of R.s12,000/-.ai!owed to him as mentioned above'also cannot be he!d to be.on higher side.- In the result, both. the'appeais deyoid of'subsl'anceare'dismissed in limine. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge