The thresher attached to the tractor was an equipment used for the purpose of propulsion by the tractor and did not require separate insurance cover. Therefore, the insurance company was liable for the accident.

1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been filed by the claimants aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.11.2000 passed by the Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sirohi ('the Tribunal'), whereby the application for compensation ('application') filed by them was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants claimants, who are wife and children of Ganeshaji Ji @ Ganesh Ram filed application before the Tribunal inter-alia with the averments that on 21.4.1995 when in the agriculture field owned by said Ganeshaji, a thresher, which was propelled by the tractor bearing No.RJ-24-R-0175 was in the process of chaffing wheat and the said Ganeshaji was involved in the process of chaffing through thresher, when suddenly driver of the tractor Laxman accelerated the speed of the tractor, which resulted in the thresher also suddenly gaining speed and sucking the hand of Ganeshaji whose hand was entangled in the said thresher, which was cut into pieces and he also sustained injuries on his face, neck etc. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligence act of Laxman, the driver of the tractor. Ganeshaji was immediately taken to the hospital at Sirohi, but despite treatment he succumbed to the grievous injuries suffered by him in the said accident.

3. In the application it was claimed that Ganeshaji was healthy person of 35 years of age and he used to earned Rs. 3,500/- per month by working as Carpenter and Mason in addition to undertaking agricultural operations. Under various heads a sum of Rs. 16,76,000/- were claimed from Laxman, the driver of the tractor; Hazarimal, the owner and the New India Assurance Company Limited, the insurer of the said tractor.

4. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the driver and owner and the averments made in the application were denied. It was inter-alia stated that thresher belonged to the deceased and the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. In additional pleas, it was stated that thresher is not a part of a tractor and the tractor was not in motion and therefore, the respondents were not liable for payment of compensation. It was also claimed that the accident did not take place at 'public place' and was a private place belonging to the deceased. It was prayed that the application be dismissed.

5. The respondent-insurance company also filed its reply and stated that the owner did not give any information about the accident whereas the same was necessary in terms of the policy conditions. The plea relating to the thresher being not a part of tractor and the same having not been insured by the insurance company was also raised. It was claimed that the accident has not occurred on account of use of tractor and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. The allegations regarding negligence of the deceased and the accident having not occurred at a public place was also raised.

6. The Tribunal framed seven issues and on behalf of the claimants Smt. Babi was examined as AW-1 and Uka Ram, Lila Ram were examined as AW-2 and AW-3 respectively. On behalf of the respondents, statement of Laxman as NAW-1 was recorded.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that though deceased Ganeshaji died on account of the injuries suffered by him from the thresher, but the claimants failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of rashness and negligence of the respondent No.1 Laxman, the tractor and thresher were both stationary and, therefore, thresher cannot be treated as a part of tractor and as thresher was not insured, therefore, the respondent-insurance company was not liable. The thresher was being operated from the engine of the tractor and the tractor was not being used as vehicle and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accident occurred from the tractor and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable. The issue No.4 was not pressed by