1. By way of this appeal, the appellant, original defendant No.3, has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T.(Main), Bhavnagar, dated 12.01.1996, rendered in M.A.C.P.
189 of 1995, whereby the tribunal awarded Rs.1,64,000/- along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on account of a vehicular accident, which took place on 17.02.1985, the deceased-Tejabhai Bhurabhai Koli lost his life. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the tribunal passed the impugned award. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions. He submitted that the tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the tribunal is highly exaggerated. He lastly contended that in view of the fact that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle i.e. tractor, the tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant-insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. He has, therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 has opposed the appeal and has prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. As regards the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to the factum of accident is concerned, the tribunal has elaborately discussed the evidence on record, more particularly, the evidence in the form of FIR, Panchnama(Exhibit-49), post-mortem note(Exhibit-46) etc., which support the case put forward by the original claimants. I have also gone through the impugned order and I find that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper and in consonance with the evidence on record and the law on the subject. Hence, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to factum of accident and quantum requires rejection.
7. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant with regard to its exoneration is concerned, it is an admitted position that the deceased was travelling in a 'tractor' which is a 'goods vehicle'. In other words, said vehicle is not meant to carry passengers. Under Section-95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” is defined as a vehicle not meant for carrying passengers. Otherwise also, it is a matter of common knowledge that Tractor is not meant for carrying passengers. Whosoever takes a ride on it shall be doing so at his own risk and if the Tractor is insured with the Insurance Company, then no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company for the death or injuries sustained in the accident.
7. The aforesaid principle has been laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of “UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. MANJULABEN PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL & ORS.”, reported in 1994 (1) G.L.R. pg. 269, wherein, it has been held that a “Tractor” or a “Trailer” being a “goods vehicle”, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.
8. Similar principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of “NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V. TARAWATI AND OTHERS”, reported in 1994 A.C.J. pg.
822 and in recent decisions of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of “RAMASHRAY SINGH V. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS”, reported in J.T.
2003 (6) S.C. pg. 97 and in the case of “NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. V. CHINNAMA AND OTHERS”, reported in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. pg. 4338.
9. In above view of the matter, it is amply clear that a “Tractor” is a “goods vehicle” and, therefore, the appellant Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay the compensation in question. Hence, it has to be concluded that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation since the vehicle involved in the accident is a “goods vehicle” i.e. Tractor. Hence, the impugned award of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. In the result, the appeal is ALLOWED. The judgment and award impugned in this appeal is QUASHED and set aside QUA the appellant. The appellant insurance company shall be REFUNDED the amount invested by the tribunal in FDRs along with interest, costs, if any, if the same is NOT WITHDRAWN by the original claimants. If the amount has, already, been WITHDRAWN by the original claimants, the same shall NOT be RECOVERED from the claimants, but, it shall be open to the appellant to recover the same from the OWNER of the offending vehicle. If, the amounts are NOT withdrawn by the original claimants, it shall be open to them to RECOVER the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. No order as to costs.
Umesh/ (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)