1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 07.12.1996 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.76 of 1992 wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ along with interest at 15% per annum from the date of application till realization.
2.0 On 15. 11. 1991 at about 6.00 P.M. one Kantaben Chhanabhai along with other persons was traveling as passengers in one Tractor bearing No. G.U.U. 8400 driven by respondent No. 2 herein. When the Tractor reached near Dargah of Savarkundla Marketing yard near Lilashapir Dargah at unmanned railway Gate, the driver tried to cross the said unmanned railway gate and at that time one passenger train came from Mahuva side which was proceeding towards Dhasa via Savarkunda dashed with the tractor. As result of this accident, Kantaben died and others injured. The legal heirs of the deceased therefore, filed aforesaid claim petition wherein the aforesaid award came to be passed which is challenged in the present appeal.
3.0 Learned advocate for the appellant Insurance Company contended that the deceased was travelling on the Tractor and as per the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” is not a “vehicle” meant for carrying passengers. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company. In support of his contention it invited attention of the decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 79 of 1985.
4.0 Heard learned advocate for the parties. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Tractor. Under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” has been defined as a vehicle not meant for carrying passengers. The decision rendered in First Appeal No. 79 of 1985 is reproduced as under:
“1.0 The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.04.1984 passed by the M.A.C.T., Jamnagar (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 97 of 1982 whereby, the said claim petition was partly allowed.
2.0 The facts as emerging from the record are that on 27.01.1982 deceased Bhikhubhai Karsanbhai Koli was traveling in a Tractor belonging to respondent no. 6 and driven by respondent no. 5 herein. It was alleged against the driver, i.e. respondent no. 5, that since the said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, it dashed with a cactus hedge located in a nearby agricultural field on account of which the deceased was thrown out of the said vehicle and he suffered serious bodily injuries. Ultimately, he succumbed to his injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 95,000/. The Tribunal, by impugned award, partly allowed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.
3.0 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Though served none appears on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5. The challenge to the award is that the deceased was traveling on a Tractor and as per the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” is not a “vehicle” meant for carrying passengers. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.
4.0 It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Tractor. Under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, “Tractor” has been 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. If some unfortunate event takes place, then neither the Driver of the Tractor nor its Owner could be held liable to pay compensation 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.
5.0 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.
5.1 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.
6.0 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.
7.0 In the result, First Appeal No. 79 of 1985 is allowed. The judgment and award dated 30.04.1984 passed by the M.A.C.T., Jamnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 97 of 1982 is quashed and set aside.
7.1 Since the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company has been allowed, the appeal being First Appeal No. 549 of 1985 preferred by the claimants shall not survive. Even otherwise, the claimants have been paid compensation under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act as per the statement made by the learned Advocate for respondent no. 6. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.”
5.0 In view of the aforesaid decision, since it is amply clear that a “Tractor” is a “goods vehicle” the appellant Insurance Company cannot 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.
6.0 In the result, First Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and award qua the Insurance Company is quashed and set aside. If the amount is lying in F.D.R it will be returned to the appellantInsurance Company and if it is withdrawn by the claimants, it will not be recovered from the claimants but it will be recovered from the owner of the vehicle by the Insurance Company. If is not withdrawn by the claimants, the claimants can recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*