Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the applicants are the heirs of deceased (Akhilesh Kumar) who met with an accident on 17.11.2006. He was returning from Firozabad with Bhanwar Singh and when they were on the highway between Shikohabad to Firozabad. When they reached near village Indumai, he took off his vehicle from the main road and they went to Kachhi Sadak   on narrow  patri ( road) being sand road. Bhanwar Singh was talking on his mobile when a tractor trolley  coming from Shikohabad bearing Tractor Trolley No. UP-80 AE-1984 at about 7.00 p.m. dashed with the said motorcycle which was stationary and hit the deceased who were fell down.  Police took both the injured to the hospital but the deceased scummed to the injures. FIR was lodged against the driver of tractor one  Sukesh son of Moolchand. Deceased-Akhilesh Kumar was aged about 21 years and earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month by working on liqueur shop and he had his own agricultural land also. Respondent nos.1- Insurance Company and Respondent No.2- owner appeared and filed their reply of rebuttal.  It is an admitted position of fact that the Insurance Company did not examine anybody as its witness whereas Naresh Kumar has examined himself as DW-1 and has categorically mentioned that the driver was the person against whom the charge sheet was laid. It is an admitted position of fact that two persons died in the accident and that the vehicle was driven by a duly licenced person.

4. Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.3,10,500/- to the claimants who are the mother and two minor brothers  who were dependant on the deceased and are heirs / representatives of the deceased.

5. The main submission advanced by counsel for appellant is that though there was a prompt FIR, number of  tractor trolley  which appeared in the FIR and the charge-sheeted tractor trolley are different which raised doubt that there is collusion between driver, owner and claimant. The insurer has been wrongly saddled with liability only because the vehicle which is said to be involved in the accident, was insured with it but was later on planted and therefore, it is submitted that when the involvement of the vehicle is doubtful, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with any liability.

9. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant that Tribunal on assumptions and suppositions had allowed the claim petition and as such the award of the Tribunal is wholly illegal and erroneous. It is submitted that tractor trolley was used for commercial purposes and has to be treated as a goods carriage as defined under Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides that goods carriage cannot ply on the road without a valid permit. The owner of the tractor trolley has not filed the permit before the tribunal and as such the tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the owner of the tractor trolley. It is further submitted that Tribunal without considering this aspect of the matter has fixed the liability on the appellant and as such the award of the Tribunal is wholly illegal and erroneous and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Natwar Parikh & Company Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2005 SC 3428 and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharatamma and others, AIR 2004 SC 4882 and view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal is illegal and erroneous.

10. It is further submitted by Advocate for appellant that driving licence of Suresh Chand, driver of the tractor trolley at the time of the alleged accident was valid for driving Tractor(Pvt) . Since the tractor was attached with trolley for all purposes it will be treated as a goods carriage as defined under Section 2(14) of Act, 1988 and in order to drive such type of vehicle the driver should be  authorized to drive a transport vehicle. Since the driving licence of Suresh Chand did not have any endorsement for driving transport vehicle, it was established that the tractor trolley was being driven by a driver who did not have a valid driving licence and as such the liability to pay compensation would be of the owner of the vehicle and not the appellant Insurance Company. But view to the contrary taken by the Tribunal is wholly illegal and erroneous.