The insurance company's failure to provide evidence to support their plea resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the award in favor of the claimants.

1. - Instant appeal has been filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. through its General Manager, Jaipur to challenge the validity of award dated 19.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gulabpura whereby, in the claim petition filed by the respondent-claimants, compensation of Rs. 5,85,800/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing the application.

2. As per facts of the case, a claim petition was filed by respondents No.1 to 6 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gulabpura, in which, it is alleged that on 11.05.2010, at about 5.30 P.M., deceased Smt. Geeta Devi and Smt. Dhapu along with Dhana Lal were going on motor-cycle No.RJ-1-4M-4052 from Patiya ka Khera to Fatehpura. Near the vicinity of Kaliyas at Puvaliya tiraha they were hit by tractor No. RJ-06-R-1129 which was being driven by respondent No.8 rashly and negligently and it resulted into death of Smt. Geeta Devi. A criminal case was registered with regard to the incident at Police Station Rayela (District Bhilwara) for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, I.P.C. against respondent No.8 Ashok Kumar. In the claim petition, the claimants made a prayer for passing award of Rs. 25,46,000/- as compensation. The Claim Tribunal after receiving reply from the appellant insurance company awarded compensation of Rs. 5,85,800/- in favour of the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% vide the impugned award dated 19.10.2011 which is under challenge in this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the award impugned is erroneous because the Tribunal has not considered the important aspect of the case that the tractor in question was insured for agriculture purpose only whereas, in this case, the tractor in question was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the award impugned is illegal because the vehicle was in question was used for commercial purpose against the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the Claim Tribunal has lost sight of the fact that the Tractor in question at the time of the accident was being used for other than agriculture purpose contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for any compensation and as such the award impugned may be quashed.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I have carefully perused the award impugned.

5. Admittedly, there is finding in the award that tractor No.RJ- 06-R-1149 hit the motor-cycle of Dhanna Lal which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the tractor which resulted into death of his wife. Dhanna Lal himself suffered disability in the said accident.

6. Learned Claim Tribunal axhibited as many as 38 documents and recorded statements of witnesses A.W.-1 Sharwan Lal, A.W.-2 Dhanna Lal and A.W.-3 Dhapu and A.W.-4 Rajendra Lodha and, after recording evidence on behalf of the insurance company gave finding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The said tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company.

7. After perusal of the award impugned, it emerges from the finding given by the Tribunal that the insurance company is not disputing the fact of insurance of the tractor; but, only taking the plea that the tractor was not being used for agriculture purpose. However, it is important to observe that for the said plea the appellant insuance led no evidence before the Claim Tribunal. Therefore, the ground taken by the appellant in this appeal to challenge the award is totally unfounded. In the opinion of this Court, the Claim Tribunal has rightly arrived at the finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation because the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver which was insured with the appellant insurance company.

8. In view of above, no case is made out in