JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimants, as dependents of deceased Chandra Prakash, against the award dated 29.7.1993 whereby learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran dismissed the claim application on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that Chandra Prakash died due to negligence of Inder Raj, driver of Tractor bearing registration No. RNR 4989. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the claimants filed application claiming compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/- against the owner, driver and insurer of the tractor involved in the accident, with the averments that on 21.2.1989 deceased Chandra Prakash along with the son of owner of the tractor, Laxman, Suraj Mal and few others, was travelling from Baran to village Mahu in the tractor-trolly involved in the accident. Inder Raj was driving the tractor negligently and as a result thereof at about 9 p.m. Chandra Prakash fell down from the tractor and was crushed under the wheel of the tractor and that of the trolly, to death. 3. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in their reply, denied any negligence on the part of Inder Raj, driver of the tractor, in the accident. The Insurance Company filed separate reply admitting the fact of insurance of the tractor, but denied its liability. 4. Following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: 1. Whether Chandra Prakash died on 21.2.1989 as a result of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. RNR 4989 and Trolly No. 4820. 2 Whether applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents. 3. Relief. 5. In all three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants whereas from the other side only owner of the tractor, Dhanna Lal, DW-1, was examined. 6. Learned Tribunal, having heard counsel for the parties. while deciding the issue No. 1. dismissed the claim application vide impugned order. 7. The point for consideration as to whether the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that accident took place not due to rash and negligent act of the tractor driver Inder Raj. but because of negligence on the part of Chandra Prakash himself, calls for interference in this appeal. 8. dismissed the claim application vide impugned order. 7. The point for consideration as to whether the findings arrived at by the Tribunal that accident took place not due to rash and negligent act of the tractor driver Inder Raj. but because of negligence on the part of Chandra Prakash himself, calls for interference in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence properly and wrongly relied upon the statement of the owner Dhanna Lal, DW-1, who was not travelling in the involved tractor, which is evident from the record as well as from the reply filed by Dhanna Lal and other non-applicants. That respondents did not take the plea in their reply that deceased Chandra Prakash was under influence of liquor and dancing while travelling in the tractor sitting on the mudguard. but later-on just to absolve of the liability. Dhanna Lal, DW-1, became the eye witness and concocted the story which cannot be believed. That the non-applicants did not produce Inder Raj, driver of the tractor, or son of Dhanna Lal, who was also travelling in the tractor. whereas the statement of eye witness produced by the applicants amply prove that on account of rash and negligent driving of Inder Raj, driver of the tractor, the accident took place and Chandra Prakash lost his life Reliance was placed on the judgment passed in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum & others v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & others, 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 116 . wherein relying on the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher , it was held that even use of motor vehicle would make insured and insurer liable for compensation though element of negligence may be absent. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and contended that it was passed on proper appreciation of evidence. 10. I have considered the above submissions and perused the entire material available on record. 11. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim application relied upon the statement of Dhanna Lal, DW1, tractor owner, and disbelieved the testimony of claimant Suraj Mal, AW1. 10. I have considered the above submissions and perused the entire material available on record. 11. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim application relied upon the statement of Dhanna Lal, DW1, tractor owner, and disbelieved the testimony of claimant Suraj Mal, AW1. Thus first of all it would be appropriate to evaluate the testimony of Dhanna Lal, DW1, who deposed that he was also travelling in the same tractor with Chandra Prakash; that Chandra Prakash had consumed liquor; that while travelling in the tractor Chandra Prakash was dancing on the music of tape recorder which he purchased on the same day; that he fell down of the tractor on losing balance over himself and that there was no fault of Inder Raj, in driving the tractor. 12. The statement of Dhanna Lal needs to be scanned in the light of his reply to the claim application, wherein neither he narrated that he was travelling in the same tractor nor he took the plea that Chandra Prakash had consumed liquor and was dancing in the tractor as such he fell down of the tractor losing balance over himself. In the cross examinations of Suraj Mal, AW1 and Laxmi Narain, AW2. no such suggestions were offered that Dhanna Lal was also travelling in the same tractor. Thus it transpires that Dhanna Lal became eye witness of this accident later on to develop a new story just to absolve of his liability being owner of the involved vehicle. It is also not disputed that the tractor involved in the accident was driven by Inder Raj, respondent No. 6 but he was not produced in the witness box, who could have thrown some light for the accident. 13. So far the allegation levelled by tractor owner Dhanna Lal that Chandra Prakash had consumed liquor is concerned, as stated earlier, no such plea was taken in the reply to the claim application. Furthermore, after death of Chandra Prakash his dead body was subjected to autopsy but alcohol was not found in the body of deceased. 14. 13. So far the allegation levelled by tractor owner Dhanna Lal that Chandra Prakash had consumed liquor is concerned, as stated earlier, no such plea was taken in the reply to the claim application. Furthermore, after death of Chandra Prakash his dead body was subjected to autopsy but alcohol was not found in the body of deceased. 14. It is true that statement of Suraj Mal, AW1, was not found trustworthy in regard to his deposition that tractor overturned, in the light of the statements of other eye witnesses, but it is amply proved by the statements of eye witnesses Laxmi Narain, AW2, and Ram Charan, AW3, that due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver Inder Raj, deceased Chandra Prakash fell down from the tractor and crushed under the wheel of the tractor, which is corroborated from the other circumstances. 15. Thus, the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 absolving the liability of respondents on the ground that the accident did not take place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver Inder Raj, appears to be erroneous and cannot be allowed to be sustained. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Since other issues have not been decided, this matter is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran for deciding all issues in the light of observations made herein-above. In the result, the appeal is allowed.Appeal allowed - Case remanded as above. *******