Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against the Award dated 23.02.2007 passed in the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide which appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the awarded compensation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are that on that on 15.11.2004 Gurdhian Singh alongwith Didar Singh and Sultan Singh was returning on tractor trolley No. PB-11-Q-5574 after loading rice straw. When the said tractor trolley reached within the revenue limits of village Manjoli, the hook of trolley all of sudden broken and the tractor trolley turned turtle upside down. The tractor was being driven by respondent No.1 and Gurdhian Singh alias Pilla was 1 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150388 FAO-2117-2007 (O&M) sitting on the left mudguard of the tractor whereas Sultan Singh was sitting on the right side of the mudguard. As a result of this accident, the driver of the tractor trolley received multiple injuries while Gurdhian Singh came underneath the tractor trolley. Oil also started oozing from the engine of the tractor and the tractor caught fire. Gurdhian Singh was removed from underneath the tractor but he died due to fire.

2 of 11 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150388 FAO-2117-2007 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company asserts that the Tribunal has erred in holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation, as the claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor at the time of the incident. He contends that a tractor is not intended for carrying passengers, and if an individual on the mudguard sustains fatal injuries due to a fall, any claim for compensation would not be maintainable against the Insurance Company. Instead, liability, if any, would lie solely on the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, present appeal be allowed, and the insurance company be absolved of its liability to discharge the awarded sum.

7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/claimants contend that the award has rightly been passed and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

9. The relevant portion of the Award is reproduced as under:-

"18. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company has argued that as the deceased was sitting on the mudguard and was a gratuitous passenger, therefore, he is not entitled to compensation from the insurance company and the insurance company is not liable to pay the same. On this point, learned counsel for the insurance company cited 2006 ACJ 671 (Kar.) in which it is held as under:-
"Motor insurance-Tractor-Passenger risk-Liability of insurance company-Permitted seating capacity of tractor is only that of driver-Regulation 28 of Rules of the Road Regulations prohibit carrying of any person on the mudguard of a tractor- Whether insurance company is liable for the death of a person, who was traveling on the mudguard of a tractor-Held: nc."

19.Learned counsel for the insurance company further cited 1994 ACJ 822 (P&H) in which it is held as under: -