Rajasthan High CourtNational Insurance Company vs Biramchand And Ors. on 29 January, 2002Equivalent citations: 2002(3)WLC283, 2003(2)WLN588Author:Gyan Sudha MisraBench:Gyan Sudha MisraJUDGMENT
 

 Misra, J.1. The appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has assailed the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhalawar Camp Aklera who has been pleased to award a compensation of Rs. 2,67,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimants on a vital part of his body which is spinal cord which has rendered him totally incapacitated and he is bed ridden. The appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation and rightly so- considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. The appellant however is aggrieved of the fact that the amount of compensation should have been paid by the owner of the tractor which was insured with the appellant-Company since he is guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, the terms and conditions of the policy indicate that the tractor could be used for agricultural operations and the owner of the tractor was entitled to carry the crops which were cut on the field and that is apparent from the clause incorporated in the Insurance policy in this regard which can be quoted for facility of reference:- "Limitation as to use- Agriculture and own goods use" which clearly indicates that the owner of the tractor was permitted to use the tractor for carrying goods provided it belonged to him. The tractor admittedly could not be used for commercial purpose but if any goods were carried on the tractor which belonged to the owner of that vehicle, then the Insurance Company would clearly be liable to pay the amount of compensation.2. From a scrutiny of the evidence on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties it could be noticed that although the Insurance Company took the objections before the Tribunal that the goods carried on the tractor did not belong to the owner of the vehicle, the depositions of the witnesses do not clearly indicate that the goods belonged to anyone-else other than the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company under the circumstances was duty bound to cross-examine the witnesses and elicit unequivocally whether the goods carried on the tractor did not belong to the owner of the vehicle. But that part of the evidence is missing in the impugned award and therefore the grievance of the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle was used for any other purpose other than for agricultural purpose and the goods carried on the tractor did not belong to the owner of the vehicle, cannot be entertained at the appellate stage. The appellant-Insurance Company therefore cannot be exonerated of the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants- respondents which has already been paid to him. The appeal under the circumstances, has no merit and hence it stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.