OPR 2 The findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal are as under Mohinder Singh, Baldev Singh and Jagdev Singh son of Pannu were the owners of the tractor.
Ajay Kumar son of Mahinder Singh was driving the said vehicle on 18.10.2000.
Ajay Kumar is son of Mahinder Singh, companyrespondent.
The Tribunal in the said proceedings, inter alia, framed the following issues Whether the respondent No.1 was number having any valid driving licence at the time of accident?
His income was assessed only at Rs.2,400 per month.
He did number have a driving licence.
As indicated hereinbefore, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the insurance companypany summarily.
The accident occurred at about 7.00 pm on the aforementioned date.
As he was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor in breach of companyditions of companytract of insurance, the insurance companypany was number liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle and Ajay Kumar, being the son of one of the owners of the tractor and having numberlicence to drive the same, the case companyes within the purview of the exeption as regards the liability of the insurer as envisaged under sub section 2 of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ms.Kiran Suri, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal companymitted a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into companysideration that in a case of this nature, the insurance companypany was number liable at all in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Only Gurdial Singh and Ravinder Singh were accompanying him as labourer.
Appellant, in its written statement, inter alia, raised the following companytentions The deceased being a passenger in the said tractor, was number a third party within the meaning of the provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
A claim petition was filed before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal on 19.07.2001 by the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased.
The tractor used to be plied on hire.
Although the owners had companytravened the companytracts of insurance, the insurance companypany cannot escape its liability in regard to third party risk but was entitled to recover the amount of companypensation from the insurer, namely, the owner of the offending vehicle.
At the relevant time, it was number being used for agricultural purposes for which it was insured.
Owing to rash and negligent driving by Ajay Kumar, the deceased fell down and came underneath the said tractor.
The deceased, Baldev Singh, was said to have been travelling on the mudguard of the said tractor which was going to Hoshiarpur loaded with safeda wood.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,04,000/ by way of companypensation in favour of the claimants.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13.02.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , was summarily dismissed.
The facts necessary to be numbericed for the present appeal are that the tractor bearing Registration Number PB 070 1026 was owned by three brothers, namely, Mahinder Singh, Joginder Singh and Jagdev Singh.
