The liability of the insurance company in a motor accident claim case depends on the interpretation of the insurance policy and the use of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Shabihul Hasnain, J.

This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16.10.2012, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 26 of 2011 (Smt. Geeta Devi and others v. Pankaj Singh and others), passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Lakhimpur Kheri.

2. Heard Sri P.N. Dwivedi, learned counsel for appellants and Sri Jitendra Narain Mishra, for Insurance Company and gone through the record.

3. In nutshell, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that an accident took place on 13.12.2010 when the deceased, Ram Jiwan was coming back on a bicycle from Rajapur along with his brother-in law, Sarvesh with some materials for use in agriculture, when they reached near Kakarhwa sugarcane centre, the Tractor 555 Arjun, Registration No.31F2365 fitted with a Trolley loaded with sugarcane allegedly hit the deceased and he breathed his last on the spot. The FIR was lodged by the wife of the deceased, opposite party no.1, Smt.Geeta Devi.

4. The respondents/claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition in which the driver of the tractor was arrayed as opposite party no.1, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 as owners of the tractors and opposite party no.4 is Insurance Company. Opposite party no.1 did not contest the claim petition and no written statement was filed on his behalf, whereas respondent nos. 2 & 3 filed joint written statement alleging that no incident took place from the alleged tractor and even if it is found proved, the responsibility lies with opposite party no.4, the Insurance company, for awarding compensation.

5. Opposite party no.4 of the claim petition filed written statement alleging that claimants have not come before the court with clean hands. At the time of accident, the driver of the alleged tractor was not having valid licence; the tractor involved in the incident was not having fitness certificate, route permit, registration certificate along with other legally required documents. No information has been furnished about the incident by the owner of the tractor to the insurance company; the claimants are not dependents of the deceased; the trolley attached with the tractor was not insured and thus was unregistered and its use was being done against the policy conditions.

6. After hearing the counsel for the rival parties, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal by the impugned order fixed the liability of payment of compensation to the victim on the owner of the vehicle, who have brought this First Appeal From Order challenging this liability. According to them the Tractor was fully insured and the Driver had a valid license. It appears that the lower Court below has been swayed by the fact that the Tractor at the time of accident was fitted with the Trolley also. The said Trolley was carrying sugarcane, which was being transported through the Tractor.

7. The lower Court below had made five points for determination, the decision on the fourth point has become crucial for the purpose of this appeal. Question no.4 is to the following effect :

"Whether the Tractor was being deployed under the terms of agreement with the Insurance Company at the time of accident or not ?"

8. Learned counsel for Insurance Company had argued that the Tractor in question was not being run according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy. He says that the insurance policy only mentions the word 'Tractor' and does not include the 'Trolley' with the Tractor. Further, the Trolley was not insured with the Insurance Company, hence the liability to pay compensation will lie only if the Tractor was being used independent of Trolley. It has also been argued that if the Trolley is being used for any purpose, other than 'agricultural purposes', it will be taken to be a goods vehicle, which will not be covered by the simple policy covering the Tractor alone.

9. Undisputedly the accident took place by the Tractor at the time when the Trolley was definitely attached to the Tractor. It is als