Madhya Pradesh High CourtAarif And Anr. vs Urmilabai And Ors. on 4 November, 2003Equivalent citations: 2004ACJ1496JUDGMENT
 

S.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The driver and the owner of the tractor involved in the accident have preferred this appeal against the award dated 25.8.2000 of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Burhanpur passed in Claim Case No. 29 of 2000. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, as legal representatives of the deceased Tarachand, had filed an application underSection 166of the Motor Vehicles Act to seek compensation of Rs. 11,55,800 on account of death of Tarachand in an accident with the tractor bearing registration No. MP 12-0387. It was stated that deceased Tarachand was engaged as a labourer in the field of Faruq Ali. On the date of accident, he had been employed in connection with the levelling of the field. While he was engaged in the said agricultural operation, the tractor overturned over him causing his death. The tractor was insured with respondent No. 6, insurance company.2. The insurance company resisted the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and stated that tractor was being used in violation of the provisions of theMotor Vehicles Actand the conditions of the policy and, therefore, the insurance company was in any case not liable. The Tribunal while finding that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,40,000 from the driver and the owner of the tractor, exonerated the insurance company, respondent No. 6. The appellants have, therefore, filed the present appeal.3. In assessing whether the driver of the vehicle was negligent, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that although there is no provision for sitting on a tractor except the seat provided for the driver, the driver allowed Tarachand to sit on the mudguard which clearly shows his negligence. This apart, the tractor was on the ground which was undulated where greater care and caution was needed in driving the tractor and the fact that in the open ground the tractor overturned by itself was indicative of the negligence of the driver. It is, thus, clear that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the driver.4. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that in the absence of the copy of the policy on record, it cannot be said that any condition of the policy was violated by the owner and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. He has further contended that unless the knowledge could be imputed to the owner that the vehicle was being used in breach of the condition of the policy, the insurance company could not be relieved from its liability to pay compensation. In the case, it was admitted that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor which is not meant for carrying passengers. The tractor had been given on hire which again was not the purpose for which it was insured. The owner did not lead any evidence to the effect that he was not aware about the said use of the tractor. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, rightly absolved the insurance company.5. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed but with no order as to costs.