Beli Ram vs Smt. Kanta Devi and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—This appeal is directed against the award, dated 7th March, 2005 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,99,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of Respondents Kanta Devi and Jagdish Chand, on account of death of bread-earning head of their family, Sh. Roshan Lal, in an accident of a tractor and the liability to pay the compensation, together with interest, has been fastened upon the Appellant, who was the owner of the tractor, in question, at the relevant time. Deceased Roshan Lal, husband of Respondent Kanta Devi and father of Respondent Jagdish Chand was travelling by Tractor No. HP-22-4857, owned by the Appellant, on 26th August, 2000, when the said tractor met with an accident, near a place called ''Manoh Khad''. In that accident Roshan Lal died and one other person, also travelling by that tractor, namely Piar Chand, sustained injuries. Accident was alleged to have taken place on account of rash or negligent driving of the tractor by its driver Respondent Dev Raj. Separate petitions were filed, one by Respondents Kanta Devi, Jagdish Chand and another by Piar Chand. Besides the present Appellant and the driver of the tractor, New India Assurance Company was impleaded as Respondent in the petition, as insurer of the tractor.

Accident Claims Tribunal concluded that accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of the tractor and as a result of that accident Roshan Lal died. Tribunal accepted the insurer''s plea that the deceased was on board the tractor as gratuitous passenger and so it was not liable to pay compensation money. Insurer''s plea that Respondent Dev Raj did not possess valid and effective licence also found favour with the Tribunal and on this count also insurer was held to be not liable to indemnify the Appellant. Appellant is aggrieved by the award, in so far as it fastens liability to pay compensation, upon him.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

learned Counsel for the Appellant placed a copy of the award, dated 29th August, 2010, passed in appeal arising out of Piar Chand''s case, in which it has been held that Dev Raj possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The particulars of that case are, FAO No. 42 of 2004, titled Beli Ram v. Piar Chand and Ors., decided on 29th February, 2008. So, insurer cannot escape liability on this count.

As regards the second ground on which insurer has been absolved, submission made on behalf of the Appellant is that deceased was on board the tractor as a labourer engaged by the Appellant. In the petition u/s 166, claimants-Respondents did not say that the deceased was travelling as a labourer. It was specifically stated that the deceased was earning his livelihood, as a wood contractor and agriculturist. It was only the insurer who pleaded that the deceased was a labourer and he had been engaged as such by him on the relevant date and he was sitting in the tractor. Appellant led no evidence to show that the deceased had been engaged as labourer or was travelling as labourer at the time when the accident took place. He examined his attorney, namely Kuldeep Singh PW-1, who stated not even a word qua this aspect of the matter. Claimant, Kanta Devi, while in the witness box as PW-3 and another witness examined by the claimants, namely PW-4 Duni Chand, very categorically stated that the deceased never worked as labourer and that he was a contractor. Taking clue from the testimony of claimant kanta Devi and PW-4 Duni Chand, Appellants tried to prove that the deceased was carrying ''Bajari'' in the tractor as contractor to raise a ''Danga'' on his (Appellant''s land). No doubt attorney of the Appellant, namely Kuldeep Singh RW-1 did say so, but his testimony on the face of it is unbelievable because as per averments in the petition, the deceased was a wood contractor and not a construction contractor.

In view of the above stated position, I find no reason to interfere with the Tribunal''s finding that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger on board the tractor at the time when the accident took place and hence, it (the Insurance Company) is not liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.