The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company for paying compensation is determined based on the interpretation of the definition of the vehicle involved and the terms of the insurance policy.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), 2nd Fast Track Court, Dahod (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No.1523 of 2004 and 1524 of 2004 which came to be disposed of by common judgment and award, the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeals.

2. The same set of facts was adduced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has heard the claim petitions together and so also, the present appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeals.

3.1 That the accident took place on 22.06.1996 at about 3.45 p.m. near Bordagota Dungar and Slop of Kabutari Dam. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased Ashutoshbhai and Manuben were travelling in Tractor bearing registration No.GJ-10- A-9888 which came to be driven by opponent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, due to which, tractor turned turtle and as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on account of the same. An FIR came to be lodged at Exhibit 23 before the jurisdictional police and the present claim petitions were filed by the legal heirs of the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal and claimed compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/- respectively.

3.2 After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petitions by awarding Rs.2,54,000/- and Rs.1,54,000/- respectively as compensation in favour of the claimants.

4. The original claimants have relied upon the following oral as well as documentary evidence.

5. Heard Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, Mr.U. M. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Mr. M. A. Bukhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4.

6. Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for appellant – Insurance Company has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeals. He has submitted that the Tribunal has misinterpreted the definition of tractor which was involved in the accident and held the insurance company liable to satisfy the award. He has submitted that under the insurance policy and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. He has submitted that the definition of tractor contained in Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act means ‘motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but excludes a road roller’ and in the present case, the tractor involved bearing registration No.GJ-17-A-9888. He has submitted that without prejudice to the generality of the contentions and without admitting liability, whatsoever, the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. On all these grounds, He has submitted that the present appeal deserves to allowed.

6.1 Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – insurance company has relied upon the decisions in the case of (i) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Amrutaben Rajusing Darbar (Zala) dated 17.02.2020 rendered in First Appeal No.3377 of 2017 and allied appeals by the Division Bench of this Court and (ii) The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sureshkumar Shankralal Darji dated 15.06.2017 rendered in First Appeal No.4601 of 2007 and 4602 of 2007 by the Division Bench of this Court.

7. Mr.Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent