Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurance company aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which a sum of Rs.2,58,000 has been ordered to be paid to the claimants by way of compensation on account of road accident involving the tractor insured with the appellant insurance company. The appellant insurance company is aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to indemnity the owner for payment of the said compensation to the claimants.

2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the tractor was insured for agriculture purpose only with the risk of driver alone and the deceased was traveling in the trolley attached to the tractor. Even otherwise, on evidence that has come on record, it is proved that deceased was working as a labourer and was doing the work of loading and unloading of the sand. He was sitting on the trolley and due to fall from the trolley, he got dead. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in directing the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation. It was further argued that the tractor was insured for own damages and it was an `act only policy'. No premium has been charged for the liability of the labourer or for any other use of the tractor other than agriculture. The tractor was not found to have been used for agriculture purpose at the time of accident. In view of all the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal could not direct the insurance company to make payment of the compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Serjerao-MACD 2008 (SC) 33, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & Ors.-2007 (3) TAC 20 (SC) and judgment of this Court in Chena Ram & Anr. vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.563/2006 decided on 27.9.2011.

3. Shri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company. The deceased was not engaged as a labourer for loading or unloading of the sand, therefore, the award of the Tribunal is perfectly justice.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

5. A perusal of Ex.A-13 indicates that it was a Farmers Package Policy and the risk covered was mentioned in Section-I, III and V as per the schedule attached therewith. The cover note mentions the policy to be for agriculture use only. In Section-I of the schedule, the risk `fire', in Section-III, `agricultural pump set' and in Section-VI `agriculture tractor' are stated to be covered under the policy and therefore the insurance company could not be held liable to pay the compensation.

6. In United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Serjerao and Others, supra, in which case labourers were travelling in a trolley attached to a tractor, in the light of earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Brij Mohan and Others, supra, it was held that there was no liability of the insurance company. The Supreme Court held that in a given situation having regard to the liability of the owner, a claim Tribunal need not go into the question as to whether the owner of the vehicle in question was at fault or not, but determination of the liability of the insurance company stands on a different footings. When a statutory liability has been imposed upon the owner, the same cannot extend liability of an insurer to indemnify the owner, although in terms of the insurance policy or under the Act, it would not be liable therefor. In Brij Mohan, supra, the Supreme Court on the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trolley, held that insurance company has no liability.

7. This Court in The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Manwati and 14 Others, supra, also dealt with the case where certain persons were travelling in a trac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document