JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by appellant-insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.04.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Tapi at Vyara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 530 of 2012 (New MACP No. 291 of 2012), by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,23,600/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimants, by holding Opponents No. 1 to 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the offending vehicle liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 29.10.2009 at about 3:00 p.m. the claimant has gone to the field of one Dipakbhai Chaudhary as a labourer for cutting the Soybeans Crop through the Thresher. First the said Thresher machine cuts the crop and after keeping it in off condition, collected the crop from it and putting in the tractor-trolley. The work which was assigned to the claimant was to collect the Soybeans crop from the Thresher and put it in the tractor. When he was collecting the crop from the Thresher and putting it in the tractor, the Thresher machine was off at that time. While he was going to put the crop in the tractor from the said Thresher machine, the driver of the machine has started the Thresher and therefore, his left leg has crushed in the said machine. The claimant got serious injuries and he was immediately shifted to the New Civil Hospital, Surat, where his left leg below the knee has been amputated. The age of the claimant at that time was 21 years and he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month, as stated in the claim petition by the claimant. The claimant has therefore filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for getting compensation.

2.2 Notices were served to the opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company. The driver and owner were appeared through their advocate and has filed written statement at Exh.16, whereas the insurance company was appeared through its advocate but not filed its written statement before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.19. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led before the Tribunal. After considering the submissions made by learned advocates for the rival parties, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,23,600/- with 9% p.a. interest to the claimants, by holding opponents jointly and severally liable.

2.3 Hence, the present appeal by the Insurance Company before this Court.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the appellant-insurance company has submitted that the claimant was sitting in the trolley attached with the tractor and working on the Thresher in the field and therefore, in view of Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation. He has submitted that the claimant is not an employee of the tractor. He has submitted that he can be considered as an unthorised passenger sitting in the tractor. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 2214 of 1999 dated 07.02.2012 and has submitted that the insurance policy of the tractor is ‘Farmer Package Policy’ which is produced on record at Exh.38. Therefore, since the present claimant is neither owner nor employee of the tractor and therefore, his risk cannot be covered and furthermore, he has tried to point out from the impugned judgment by contending that the Tribunal has not given any finding regarding the liability aspect. Except these, no other grounds/submissions is made by learned advocate for the appellant. He has submitted that this appeal may be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Vijay Nangesh for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Mr. Modi, learned advocate has submitted that it is a clear case of the cl