The main legal point established was the application of negligence and breach of policy conditions in determining liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 9-11-2006 passed by the IXth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C). Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT') in Claim Case No. 5/2006 granting compensation of Rs. 9,31,196/- for the death of Dhansai, a Gateman in the Railways due to vehicular accident with a tractor trailer, the insurer has filed Miscellaneous Appeal (C). No. 85/2007 and the claimants have filed Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 14/2007, which are being disposed of by this common order.

2. During the course of arguments, the following facts were not disputed by learned Counsel for the appellants and the owner in both the appeals:

(A) That Dhansai was working as a Gateman in the South Eastern Railway at Bilaspur.

(B) That tractor and trailer No. CG 07 D 4349 and 4350 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tractor trailer') were owned by respondent No. 5, Smt. Khorbaharin (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') insured by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') on the date of accident, i.e. 31-12-2005 for agricultural and forestry purposes and driven by respondent No. 4. Shiv Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the driver').

(C) That Dhansai died an accidental death on 31-12-2005 while he was riding a cycle due to collision with the above mentioned tractor trailer.

(D) That the driver possessed a valid driving licence on the date of accident for driving light motor vehicles.

(E) That the accident had occurred near Murrabhatta, Hemunagar Crossing on main road of Torwa, Bilaspur.

(F) That at the time of accident, the trailer was loaded with bricks.

(G) That the appellant/claimant Jhool Bai is the widow and Ramavtar and Rajkumar are the sons of the deceased Dhansai.

(H) That right to contest the claim on any other grounds that were available to the owner and the driver of the vehicle was granted by the MACT to the appellant/insurer vide order dated 3-8-2006.

(I) That no evidence was led by the owner and the driver of the tractor trailer before the MACT.

3. In their application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the appellants/ claimants had pleaded that death of Dhansai was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailer by the driver. Dhansai was earning gross salary of Rs. 10,417/- per month and also owned 8 acres of agricultural land having annual agricultural income of Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants/ claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 28,00,048/-.

4. The owner and the driver of the tractor trailer filed a joint written statement and specifically pleaded that on the date of accident the tractor was carrying bricks in the trailer for being taken to the site of the under construction pump-house of the son-in-law of the owner and also for purposes of construction of drains in the agricultural field. On way, a leakage occurred in the diesel pump and, therefore, the driver was taking the tractor trailer to a workshop situated at Link Road, Bilaspur for getting the pressure pump repaired. The tractor trailer was driven at a slow speed and the deceased stumbled on the trailer after the tractor had overtaken him and died due to his own negligence. Since the tractor trailer was insured, the liability to pay compensation was solely on the appellant/insurer.

5. The appellant/insurer in its written statement denied the pleadings in claim petition in toto and pleaded that the deceased Dhansai was responsible for the accident. Besides, the tractor trailer was not being used for purposes of agriculture, which was a breach of the policy conditions, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. It was also pleaded that the driver of the tractor trailer did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. On these premises, it prayed that it was not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The MACT recorded a finding that the accidental death of Dhansai was attributable to the negligence of t