The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle if the deceased's risk is not covered under the insurance policy, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

P.R. Bora, J.

The judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 418 of 2006 on 20.06.2011 is challenged in the present appeal by the insurance company which was respondent no.2 in the said petition.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants') had filed the aforesaid petition claiming compensation on account of the death of one Ayyub Sayyad in a vehicular accident happened on 20.07.2006 having involvement of a tractor owned by present respondent no.8 and insured with the present appellant. It was the contention of the claimants before the Tribunal that deceased Ayyub fell down from the tractor-trolley because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and suffered death as a result of injuries caused to him in the said accident. The claimants had, therefore, claimed the compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs from the owner and insurer of the said tractor. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant insurance company mainly on the ground that the policy of insurance pertaining to the tractor involved in the accident was not covering the risk of the deceased since he was sitting on the mud guard of the tractor. According to the appellant insurance company, except the driver of the tractor no one else was allowed to sit in the tractor and according to the terms of policy risk of the driver alone was covered. It was the further contention of the appellant insurance company that by unauthorisedly allowing the deceased to sit on the mud guard of the tractor the owner and driver of the said tractor had committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and, as such, no liability was liable to be fasten on the insurance company of paying any compensation to the claimants or to indemnify the insured.

3. During the trial, the complainants made out a case that deceased Ayyub was not sitting on the mud guard of the tractor but was in a trolley attached to the said tractor and fell down from the said trolley as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said tractor. The claimants had also placed on record the police papers pertaining to the accident in question which included F.I.R., spot panchnama, inquest panchnama etc. The appellant-insurance company filed on record the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation of the crime registered in connection with the alleged accident.

4. The tribunal after having scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, though, held that there was breach of insurance policy and the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, while passing the final order held insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. The tribunal has also issued further direction to the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation at the first instance to the petitioners and then to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending tractor. Aggrieved by, the insurance company has filed the present appeal.

5. Heard Shri A.B. Gatne, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, Shri J.R. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Shri K.D. Bade-Patil, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8. Perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

6. Shri A.G. Gatne, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that, once the tribunal has held that there was a breach of insurance policy and the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, the tribunal ought not have directed the appellant insurance company to jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation as determined by the tribunal to the claimants and also could not have issued any such direction against the appellant-insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation