•f Bs";"iS& S ••v^SS^-fS, JS ^^./! ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.:±lon'bleSJiri Jystice^Radhe Shvam Sharma Miscellaaeoys Appeal (C) No.297 of 2009 Appellants Respondents 2. Versus 1. Santosh Kumar, aged about 30 years, Son of Latmarram Janghel (driver) Latmarram, aged about 55 years, Son of Chainlal Janghel (Owner) Both are residents of Ghirgholi, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Faguram, aged about 45 years Son ofAmru Gond; Smt. Arun Bai (Smt. Arup Bai as mentioned in the impugned award), aged about 40 years, Wife of Faguram Gond (Claimants) Bofh are residents of Ghirgholi, Talisil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (CG) United India Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) (Insurer) ^ Present: Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Dashrath Prajapati, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 5th August, 2011) This appeal has been preferred by the driver and the owner of the tractor bearing registration No.CG-OS/C/8431 and trolley bearing registration No.CG-OS/C/8437, challenging the award dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims ^l•^ Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) in Claim Case No.28/2008, whereby the claim of the claimants has been partly allowed, compensation of Rs.1 Lakh has been awarded in favour of the claimants and liability for payment of compensation to the claimants has been fastened on the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents 1 & 2/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988') before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.8,75,000/-, on account of death of their son, namely, Narendra Kumar, arose out of an accident took place on 15 January, 2008, caused by the tractor and trolley, driven by appellant No.1 and owned by appellant No.2 at the relevant time. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal, while considering the pleadings, evidence and other materials available on record, has held that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purpose, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, and exonerating the Insurance Company has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour ofthe daimants, holding liability to satisfy the award upon the appellants. 4. Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that the Claims Tribunal is not correct in absolving the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. The interest ordered by the Claims Tribunal is also on higher side. ^ 5. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Shri Dashrath Prajapati, learned counsel for the claimants supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Claims Tribunal, on a closed scrutiny of evidence available on record, the documents filed and the submissions made bythe parties, has correctly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants was that the tractor and trolley was being used for agricultural purposes, but the Claims Tribunal has held that the tractor and trolley was being used for transporting Muroom, which cannot be said to be an agricultural purpose. The Claims Tribunal has also held that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and trolley, which is a breach of conditions of the insurance policy. 8. Ex-P/2 is the First Information Report. It is mentioned in the FIR (Ex-P/2) that when deceased Narendra Kumar was climbing on the tractor, appellant No.1 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result ofwhich, Narendra Kumarfell down and came under the wheels of the trolley. Dakesh (AW-2), who lodged the first information report, has deposed that the tractor and trolley was being used for transporting Muroom and was being driven by Santosh/appellant No.1. Deceased Narendra Kumar, Dileep and he himself were sitting on the tractor. Narendra Kumar fell down from the tractor and on that account he succumbed. Santosh/appellant No.1 has deposed in para 4 of his statement that Narendra Kumar ^- Bini was working as a labourer in the tractor and Narendra Kumar, Dileep, Dakesh and Suresh were sitting on the engine of the tractor at the time of the accident. 9. Tbe arguments of learned counsel for the appellants that the tractor and trolley was being used for tr.ansporting Muroom for agricultural purpose, is not acceptable. This fact was not pleaded by the appellants in their written statement before the Claims Tribunal. 10. It was for appellant No.2/owner of the tractor and trolley to establish that the tractor and trolley was being used for transporting Muroom for his agricultural purposes, but appellant No.2 has not pleaded this fact in his written statement before the Claims Tribunal. From this, it is evident that the tractor and trolley was being used for the purpose other than agricultural purpose, which is a breach of conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, liability for payment of compensation cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company and it rests only on the owner and the driver of the tractor and trolley. 11. In view of the above, l am of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal against the appellants is finding of fact and is recorded on the strength of legal admissibte evidence. No interference of this Court is warranted in the impugned award. The award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 12. In the result, the appeal is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. —— Sd/- Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge