The insurer is not liable to pay compensation for accidents caused by the insured's own negligent driving, and the MACT has no jurisdiction to award compensation for damage to the insured vehicle.

D.R. Deshmukh, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application for compensation vide award dated 14-8-1997 passed in Claim Case No. 12/94 by the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth 'the MACT'), the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.

2. Following facts are not disputed. Appellant/claimant was the owner of Tractor-trolley No. MP-26/E-0390 on 28-3-1993 covered under a policy of insurance by the respondent for agricultural purposes. On 28-3-1993, at about 9 P.M., the appellant/claimant was returning with 5 labourers from a quarry after filling stones in the Trolley. While on a down-gradient, the Tractor had turned turtle. One of the labourers, i.e., Mohan had lodged a report on the same day at P.S. Ratanpur that while the appellant/claimant was driving the Tractor-trolley in a rash and negligent manner on a down-gradient, it went out of control and turned turtle. A criminal prosecution for causing injury due to rash or negligent driving was launched against the appellant/claimant, in which he was convicted upon pleading guilty and sentenced to fine.

3. The appellant/claimant pleaded that due to the accident, he suffered 25% permanent disability on his left foot. Since the policy of insurance was a comprehensive policy, the respondent/insurer was liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 4,90,000/- towards the injury sustained by him as also for the damage caused to the Tractor-trolley.

4. The respondent/insurer denied liability to pay compensation on the ground that the accident was a result of the rash and negligent driving by the appellant/claimant himself, who did not possess a valid driving licence. At the time of accident, the Tractor-trolley insured solely for agricultural purposes, was used to breach of the policy as the appellant/claimant was transporting stones for non-agricultural purpose.

5. The learned MACT recorded a finding that the Tractor- trolley was being used for agricultural purposes by the appellant/claimant, who had suffered 25% permanent disability on the left foot. However, recording a finding that the appellant/claimant did not possess a valid driving licence and had used the Tractor-trolley for carrying passengers in breach of the policy and the risk of the owner, i.e., appellant/claimant was not covered under the policy of insurance, rejected the application for compensation.

6. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant urged that photo copy of the driving licence of the appellant/claimant was filed before the learned MACT and that the claim form, Exh. D-3 submitted to the insurer by the appellant/claimant also revealed that he had given full particulars of his driving licence. In this view of the matter, since the respondent/insurer did not lead any evidence in rebuttal, the finding recorded by the learned MACT that the appellant/claimant did not possess a valid driving licence on 28-3-1993 was wholly erroneous. Reliance was placed on Punam Devi and Anr. v. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2004 ACJ 785. It was next contended that the policy of insurance did not specifically mention the various heads under which the premium had been recovered by the insurer and, therefore, in the absence of any evidence led by the insurer, it could not be held that the risk of the owner was not covered.

7. It was also urged that the insurance policy, Ex. NA-1 clearly showed that premium for the risk of the driver had been received by the insurance company and, therefore, since the owner himself was driving the vehicle, his risk was covered. On breach of policy, it was argued that once the learned MACT recorded a finding that the Tractor-trolley was being used for agricultural purposes, it could not be held by the learned MACT that the Tractor-trolley was being used for carrying passengers. Lastly, it was contended that the appellant/ claimant was at least entitled to compensation for damage caused to the vehicle since the Tr