Sunita Bai vs Babulal and Another

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 6th January, 1999 passed in Case No. 7/93, praying

therein that the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation has erroneously exonerated the Insurance Company.

The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal:

Whether the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation erred in exonerating the Insurance Company.

The appellant-claimant filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation on the ground that deceased

Rameshwar Dayal was Cleaner and he was getting salary @ Rs. 800 per month and allowance @ Rs. 10 per day. On 18th February, 1992

deceased was returning from Berad. Due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by Narayan Singh he fell from the tractor and died on the spot. At

the time of accident, the deceased was 21 years of age. Appellant being wife of the deceased is liable to get compensation. She further stated that

no compensation was paid by the respondent No. 1.

Respondent No. 1 in his written statement admitted that he was the owner of the Tractor No. C.P.G. 1301 and deceased was employed as

Cleaner in the said tractor and during the course of employment deceased died in an accident held on 18th February, 1992.

The Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation after appreciating the evidence of the parties held that deceased was employee of respondent

No. 1 and during the course of employment he died and as such appellant is entitled for compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 89,084 along

with penalty. Learned Commissioner also awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of accident till its realisation.

Learned Commissioner exonerated the Insurance Company only on the ground that tractor was insured for agricultural and forest purpose only

whereas at the time of accident the tractor was found transporting the coaltar drums and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor is meant to

be used for agricultural purpose unless registered otherwise, whereas it was being used for commercial purpose.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that policy is not proved and learned Commissioner committed error in exonerating the Insurance

Company.

On the other hand learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that policy Exhibit D-1 is duly proved and tractor is meant to be used

for agricultural purpose and policy does not cover for use of the vehicle for commercial purpose and finding of the Commissioner based on

appreciation of evidence on record and no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not disputed by the appellant and respondent No. 1 that tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purpose, whereas it was used for

transporting of coaltar for the purpose of construction of road and not for any agricultural purpose. This fact is not disputed by the appellant as well

as by the owner of the tractor. Tractor, therefore, was not being used for agricultural purpose.

Counsel for Insurance Company appearing in the case in support of his contention placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, it is held that a tractor is not even a ""Goods Carrier"" and is meant to be used

for agricultural purpose and if it was found to be used for other than agricultural purpose then Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In

view of the decision of the Apex Court, the learned Commissioner has not committed any error in exonerating the Insurance Company. In the

circumstances, as per policy Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured as the tractor was used for commercial purpose. Thus the

impugned award is just and proper and learned Commissioner has not committed any error in awarding the compensation against the owner of the

tractor. The substantial question of law is decided accordingly.

The appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.