Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned Award and submits that the appellant appellant has been wrongly held liable to pay the compensation amount as, as neither in the FIR (Ex.P3) nor in the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents respondents No.1 to 4 has it been asserted that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the offending 1 of 13 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001861 vehicle which was being driven by the appellant. It is submitted that even as per the statement made by the alleged eyewitness of the occurrence namely one Parkash/author of the FIR (Ex.P3) (Ex.P3), it has been nowhere stated that the deceased was sitting on the m mudguard of the tractor. On the contrary, he has stated in the FIR that his brother brother-in-

24.04.2023 whereafter whereafter, on the basis of the statement of the eyewitness Prakash, FIR IR no. 529 dated 24.4.2023 was registered under Sections 279, 304-A 304 A of IPC at Police Station City Panipat against the appellant. A certified copy of the said FIR was produced before the learned Tribunal as Ex. P2. In the said FIR, it was asserted that the deceased Om Prakash was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and when he had started to climb down from the offending vehicle vehicle, the appellant suddenly moved the tractor in haste in a negligent manner due to which the deceased got hit by the tractor and fe fell down on the road.

realisation

10. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that liability of payment of the above compensation has been wrongly affixed 5 of 13 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001861 upon the appellant as the deceased was not sitting on the mudguard of the offending vehicle when the accident took place. However, th the said argument of the appellant is liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the same is contrary to the evidence on record. It is the consistent case of the claimants as well as the eyewitness/ eyewitness/complainant/PW1 that the deceased was alighting from the offending vehicle when the appellant drove the same in a hasty and negligent manner due to which the deceased fell down and was hit by the tractor due to which he had suffered multiple grievous injuries to which he succumbed on 24.04.2023. The case as put forth by the eyewitness was further strengthened by his testimony as PW1 and his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A.

"24. It was argued by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that respondent no.2-Insurance Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants as the deceased Om Parkash Rajbhar was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor which is revealed from the testimony of PW1 PW1- Parkash (eyewitness/author of FIR) and the tractor was insured for the driver. and not for other person/passenger and the seating capacity of the tractor is only for one person, i.e. driver and as such the Insurance Company should not be made liable for an occurrence, currence, which takes place on a vehicle not meant for passengers. In this regard, he has dra drawn his support from case titled The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ishwanti & 7 of 13 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:001861 Ors. 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 110/111 P&H P&H. It was further argued by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the tractor has been meant for agriculture purpose which is revealed from Registration Certificate Ex.R1,, as in the RC, it is mentioned that it is meant for one person/one seat and the Insurance Policy Ex.R3/R4 are on the file which go to show this fact that the tractor has been insured for the agriculture purpose. So, when the tractor is meant to be used for agriculture purpose and not for commercial use then the Insurance Company is not liable iable to pay the amount of compensation as in the present case, the deceased was the gratuitous passenger on the tractor and when he was alighting from the tractor then he came under the tyre of the tractor and due to this, he succumbed to the injuries and so the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. In this regard, he has drawn support from case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma & Ors. 2005(1) LJR 145/146 SC and prayed that the liability can 1 be fastened upon respondent no.1 being the driver and owner of the vehicle in question and the insurance company be exonerated exonerated.".