1. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2003, passed by the M.A.C.T.(Main), Valsad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No. 966 of 2002(Old No.430 of 1996) whereby, whereby, the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.2,10,000/-with interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The facts as emerging from the record are that on 27.04.1996 deceased Kailashben was was traveling in a Tractor bearing registration No. GJ 15 C- 6089 as a labourer. The driver of the said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, therefore, it turned turtle. As a result of the said accident, Kailashben sustained grievous injuries and due to which he died. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The Tribunal, by impugned award, partly allowed the claim petition. Hence, the present appeal.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the present appeals mainly contending that the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling was a 'goods vehicle' and therefore, it could not be saddled with any liability. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, reported in 2012(4) SCALE 111 and the decision of this Court passed in F.A. No. 79 of 2005, decided on 5.7.2006.
4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle involved in the accident is a Tractor. It also established from FIR that the deceased was travelling in the 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. Under the circumstances, the appellant-Insurance Company could not be held liable in view of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra). Hence, the appeal of the Insurance Company deserves to be allowed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed only qua the extent of imposition of liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall not be recovered from the original claimants and the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. But, if the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company and it will be open for the original claimants to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Registry shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.)
pawan