1. The issue involved in this appeal is covered by a decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.1964/1999 dated 06.12.2012, which reads as under;
"These appeals are directed against the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.395 and 396 of 1996 whereby the claim petitions were partly allowed and the opponents therein are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- and Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners of MAC Petition No.395 of 1996 and 396 of 1996 respectively.
The case of the original claimants was that on 22nd April 1996 at about 4.30 PM one Suvaben along with her daughter Sangita were travelling in the tractor bearing registration No.GJ-1-E-8933, who had gone to the bank of river Sabarmati for collecting the sand. While returning the said truck was being driven at excessive speed and because of uneven road, both of them had fallen down from the truck and sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The claimants therefore filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1 lakh respectively. The tribunal has passed the aforesaid amount awarding the said sum.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the tractor in question was not insured with the appellant at the time of the accident. He submitted that it is evident from the FIR that the tractor was not involved and therefore insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question is a Tractor which is not meant for carrying passengers and on this ground also the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
4. 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. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon Exhibit 36 where it has been stated that there is no breach of any written condition of the policy Exhibit 40. The view taken by the tribunal that at the relevant time the tractor was being used fro construction of a room for storage of agricultural implements and seeds and that the vehicle was used for agricultural purpose is erroneous.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement and award passed by the Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.248 of 1984 qua the appellant is quashed and set aside. It will be open to the claimants to recover the amount from the owner and driver and from the insurance company. No order as to costs."
2. However, Mr. RC Kakkad requests for time. S.O to 25.01.2011.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top