The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for compensation when a passenger is traveling in a tractor.

JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, original opponent no. 3 i.e. present appellant - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the legality and validity of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Assistant) 2nd Additional Court at Modasa dated 27.01.2010 in M.A.C.P. No. 1583 of 1997.

2. The background of the facts which has given rise to the present appeal is that on 13.03.1997 the original claimant i.e. opponent no. 1 herein was travelling in tractor thresher for harvesting wheat from the agricultural field and the said tractor was driven by opponent no. 3 herein. At about 9:00 pm in the night, opponent no. 3 in a rash and careless manner drove the tractor on account of which the original claimant who was sitting beside the driver on mudguard, due to bad surface of the road, fell down from the tractor and the wheel of the tractor has ran over his leg and damaged the left leg of the claimant. Initially the injured claimant was first brought to Mehgraj and thereafter at Modasa and admitted in the clinic of Dr. Rakesh Shah. On account of serious injuries, an operation was done and his leg was amputated and later on after operation having been completed, a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police station on 28.03.1997. The claimant i.e. opponent no. 1 herein since sustained serious injuries, under the multiple heads, a claim petition was brought before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Assistant) 2nd Additional District Court, Modasa (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/-. The said claim was registered as MACP No. 1583 of 1997 which after due adjudication came to be disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 27.01.2010 and directed the opponents jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,61,800/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 6% and proportionate costs etc., which can be seen from the operative part of the award. It is this judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is made the subject matter of present First Appeal by the Insurance Company, mainly on the ground that the Insurance Company in a situation like this is not responsible for claim of compensation. From the record, it appears that this Court vide order dated 22.12.2010 has admitted the First Appeal. The said order dated 22.12.2010 reads as under:

“Appeal is admitted.

Civil Application No. 11512 of 2010

Though served, none is appeared. Interim relief is granted in terms of paragraph 5 (a) on the same terms and conditions. Out of the deposited amount, 60 % shall be invested in the name of the Nazir of the Tribunal with a nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years and on maturity shall be renewed by one year at a time without any further orders in this regard till the disposal of the appeal. The Fixed Deposit Receipt shall be kept with the Nazir of the Tribunal. Whereas 40 % of the awarded amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant, which will be adjusted at the time of outcome of the appeal. The periodical interest that may be accrued on the said deposit shall be paid to the original claimants. Application stands disposed of accordingly.”

3. Later on, it appears that before the co-ordinate Bench, on 21.03.2016 it was observed that the present appeal be placed after disposal of First Appeal Nos. 4601 of 2007 and 4602 of 2007 to be decided by the Division Bench of this Court and it transpires that after disposal of the said First Appeals by the Division Bench, present First Appeal has come up for consideration before this Court and learned advocate Ms. Karuna Rahevar has represented the appellant Insurance Company whereas, Mr. B.K. Oza, has appeared on behalf of Mr. U.M. Shastri, learned advocate appearing for the original claimant i.e. opponent no. 1 herein.

4. Ms. Rahevar, learned advocate appearing for t