JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Subhash (owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR-08-P-1577) against the award dated 10.02.2015 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (for short 'the Tribunal’) on the ground that liability to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has been wrongly fastened upon the appellant.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2012, deceased Gordhan had gone with respondent No. 1 on tractor bearing registration No. HR-08-P/1577 (herein after to be referred as offending vehicle) to Adampur and at about 3.00 p.m. when they reached in Shiv Colony, Adampur, respondent No. I who was driving the tractor asked deceased Gordhan to alight from the tractor, as the street of Shiv Colony was in upper level than the road. Gordhan alighted from the tractor and was standing on one side of the street. In the meantime, respondent No.1, suddenly, carelessly, rashly and negligently drove the tractor and it turned turtle over Gordhan, due to which Gordhan suffered multiple injuries. He was immediately shifted to GH Hisar, where he was declared dead. The accident was witnessed by Om Parkash son of Chandu Ram, resident of Kalirawan. Respondent No.1 fled away from the spot leaving behind the tractor.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and filed their separate written replies denying the factum of the accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle tractor bearing No.HR-08P/1577 by respondent No.1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover the compensation from the respondents, if so, to what extent? OPP

3. Whether the present petition of the petitioners is not maintainable in law? OPR

4: Relief.”

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal while awarding compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1 to 3, fastened the liability upon the appellant to pay the compensation. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

6. Learned counsel for the appellant–owner of the offending vehicle inter alia contends that FIR was lodged on the basis of hearsay evidence and liability has been wrongly fixed upon the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He further contends that the cover note was issued by the Insurance Company for commercial purpose whereas the Insurance Policy was issued for agricultural purposes without notice to the appellant and further that policy starts from the date of issuance of cover note.

7. Further contends that it is wrongly mentioned in the FIR that the deceased was sitting on mudguard of the offending tractor at the time of accident. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed and impugned order be modified to the extent of fastening the liability upon the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No. 5 contends that the liability has rightly been fixed upon the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He, therefore prays that the present appeal be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of this case with their able assistance.

10. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned award, which reads as under:-

“ISSUES Nos.1 to 3:

10. With regard to issue of negligence on the part of respondent No.1, it was vehemently argued by counsel for insurance company that from contents of FIR Ex R1, it is duly established that deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the offending tractor bearing registration No.