Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 202 (ALL)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HAR KUNWAR

2007-01-29

R.P.MISRA, SHISHIR KUMAR

body2007
R. P. MISRA, SHISHIR KUMAR, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE present appeal is arising out of judgment dated 27. 10. 2006 passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/district judge, Lalitpur in M. A. C. P. No. 9 of 2005 (Har Kunwar v. Usha Rani ). The fact stated in the claim petition is that the claimants-respondents filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs. 16,20,000. It was stated that on 13. 1. 2005, Nathu Ram deceased was going on a tractor-trolley for the purpose of selling foodgrains in the market at about 1. 30 p. m. Makkhan was driving the tractor and due to his negligence, loop of trolley had broken down and as such, Nathu Ram fell on the road and received serious injuries and subsequently died. Criminal Case No. 27 of 2005, under sections 279, 337, 304-A, Indian Penal code has also been lodged. ( 3 ) MOTOR Accidents Claims Tribunal after considering evidence on record and pleadings of the parties, has only awarded a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 as compensation payable by the appellant. It has been contended that as there is breach of conditions of the insurance policy and the deceased nathu Ram was not a valid passenger or occupier of the tractor-trolley, therefore, no compensation is payable by the insurance company as admittedly Nathu Ram was not owner of the tractor-trolley. ( 4 ) WE have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. It is not disputed that Nathu Ram died due to the aforesaid accident. There is no denial of the factum of the accident which has taken place on 13. 1. 2005. From the record it is clear that the deceased was carrying food grains on the tractor-trolley for the purpose of selling them in the market, therefore, it will be presumed that if the person is travelling with his goods, he is a genuine occupier of said vehicle. The contention raised on behalf of appellant is not acceptable to us. Only a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 has been awarded by Motor Accidents Claims tribunal to the claimants-respondents who admittedly have two minor children. The contention raised on behalf of appellant is not acceptable to us. Only a sum of Rs. 1,05,000 has been awarded by Motor Accidents Claims tribunal to the claimants-respondents who admittedly have two minor children. ( 5 ) IN such circumstances, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .