JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kachhawaha, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') on behalf of the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 172/2014 by which, the claim petition has been allowed, while exonerating the insurance company and the claimant has been awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and at the same time, the respondent No. 2 - Owner of the offending vehicle has been directed to pay the amount of compensation.

2. Briefly put the facts leading rise to this appeal are that on the fateful day of 30.10.2013 at about 3:00 pm when the appellant-claimant going with his elder brother from Kunchloni to their village on cycle, near Bhojlai, a tractor rashly and negligently driven by its driver, came from the wrong side and hit the cycle, as a result of which, claimant received injuries.

3. The claim petition was presented before the learned Tribunal on 05.02.2014 stating, inter alia, that at the time of accident, he was 13 years of age and studying in class 8th; that as a result of the accident, he received simple as well as grievous injuries and was permanent disable and was declared to unable to do the work; that a huge amount was incurred in treatment, medicines and healthy diet and it was also stated that during the treatment, incurred on transportation and attendant; that alleged loss of future income and suffered agony etc, held responsible the non-applicant No. 1 (driver) who rashly and negligently driven the tractor, owned by the non-applicant No. 2 (owner) and insured by the non-applicant No. 3 (insurer); that a sum of Rs. 14,56,000/- was claimed as compensation.

4. The learned Tribunal, despite extending sufficient opportunities to the non-applicants No. 1 & 2 to file their written statement, on 10.02.2015, their right to file written statement was closed.

5. In its written statement, the non-applicant No. 2 insurer has denied the averments alleged in the claim petition and stated that no accident was occurred from the tractor owned by the non-applicant No. 2 and at the same time, it was alleged that the accident was occurred due to mistake and negligence of rider of the cycle, not by the mistake and negligence of the non-applicant driver; that the exaggerated compensation amount has claimed; that at the time of accident, the tractor was insured for agricultural works but was used for commercial purposes and the driver was not holding the valid and effective driving license to drive the tractor; that due to this reason, terms of the policy have been violated, therefore, insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

^^1- vk;k fnukad 30-10-2013 dks 3-00 ih-,e- ij HkkstykbZ xkao ds ikl jksM ij vizkFkhZ la-1 }kjk vizkFkhZ la-2 ds LokfeRo o vizkFkhZ la-3 }kjk chfer okgu VªsDVj la[;k vkj-ts-27@vkj&868 dks xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k dkfjr gqbZ nq?kZVuk esa izkFkhZ :iyky pksVxzLr gqvk \

2- vk;k chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZa dh vogsyuk gksus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ chek daiuh {kfriwfrZ vnk;xh gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gS \

3- vk;k izkFkhZ dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ;fn gka rks fdlls o fdruh \

4- lgk;rk \^^

7. After detailed discussion, the issue No. 1 regarding liability, this issue was decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimant. The burden to prove issue No. 2 was on the insurance company regarding violation of terms of the insurance policy and thereby seeking exoneration from paying the compensation. This issue was decided in favour of the insurance company and on the basis of findings on this issue, the insurance company was exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. The burden to prove issue No. 3 regarding determination of amou