The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of insurance policy provisions and the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant-Insurer has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') to challenge judgment and award dated 20.03.2001, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (for short, 'learned Tribunal') in Civil Suit No.84/1997 titled as Nathulal & Ors. Vs. Surendra & Ors.". The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating case of the claimants-respondents, has quantified and passed a award for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,80,000/- under various heads, while holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.

2. The facts, opposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that respondent-claimants preferred the claim petition, inter-alia, with the submission that on the fateful day of 10.05.1997, in the evening when deceased Chaina Ram, while sitting on the rear side of bonat (mudguard) of the tractor No.RJ-09/R-2572 which was coming to his village then, driver of the tractor drove the tractor rashly and negligently and due to jerk, Chaina Ram fell down and a big wheel of the tractor was passed over his head, as a result of which, Chaina Ram succumbed to death. The claimants have claimed a sum of Rs.7,56,000/- as compensation for the accidental death of Chaina Ram.

3. As per written statement submitted by the non-applicants No. 1 and 2, the deceased Chaina Ram was not working under their command and he forcefully boarded the tractor and due to his own mistake, fell down from the tractor. Insurance Company has denied its liability to pay the compensation and as per Insurance Company, right owner of the vehicle has not been made a party. It was also stated that premium has not been paid towards labour sitting on the tractor and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed as many as six issues which are reproduced here as under:-

5. In support of their claim, in evidence, the statement of Nathu was recorded as AW-1, and the statement of Shanti Lal was recorded as AW-2. On behalf of the defence, the statement of Surendra was recorded NAW-1, statement of Laxminarayan was recorded as NPW-2 (sic NAW) and the statement of Ravindra Kumar was recorded as NAW-3 (DW-3).

6. Upon conclusion of the evidence, learned Tribunal proceeded to hear final arguments and decided Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving in favour of respondent-claimants and against the non-applicants. Likewise, Issue No.2 in regard to entitlement of the claimants to receive the compensation in the sum of Rs.7,56,000/- was also decided in favour of respondents-claimants in the manner that they have held entitled for compensation at Rs. 1,80,000/-. Adverting to Issue No.3 regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as it was alleged that the deceased was sitting on the tractor as a labourer. This issue was also decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No.4 regarding liability of the insurance company was decided against the insurance company, while observing that the insurance company cannot be escaped from its liability to pay the compensation. Issue No. 5 regarding holding of a valid and effective license by the driver of the tractor was decided against the non-applicants and in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 6 regarding relief was decided by the learned Tribunal has held the claimants to receive the amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/-.

7. For ready reference, the order dated 20.03.2001 is reproduced here as under:-

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment and award passed by Tribunal concerned.

9. Arguing on this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company has essentially assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal on Issue No. 4, against the Insurance Company which held the company liable to pay compensation. It is furt