JUDGMENT :

1. This First Appeal From Order is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 27.5.1993, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Banda (herein after referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No.102 of 1989 (Smt.Wasimunnishan and others vs. Battu Ram and another) awarding a sum of Rs.2,94,400/- as compensation to the claimants with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that aforesaid claim petition was filed before learned Tribunal with the averments that on 2.3.1989 at about 7:00 pm the deceased Mohammad Anwar was going from Pangara to Naraini. In front of the Naraini Dak Bunglow, a tractor bearing No.URE-9674 was also going towards Naraini, which was laiden with iron bars and other agricultural implements on the trolley and the iron bars were protruding outside from the trolley on the back side. There was no red flag or any other cloth for warning nor there was any light on the back side. The tractor driver without giving any indication or blowing horn suddenly stopped the tractor wrongly due to which the iron rod hit the deceased, who was coming from behind on a scooter. The rod hit in the neck of deceased and he died instantaneously. The deceased was pillion of scooter.

3. Heard Shri K.S.Amist, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Shri Pravesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-claimants. None appears for the owner. Perused the record.

4. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company, who has been saddled with liability by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has felt aggrieved by the compensation awarded and by the finding of fact that the driver of the motorcycle was not negligent. The appellant has felt aggrieved that question of non-joinder of the owner and the Insurance Company of the motor-cycle has been rejected despite the fact that the deceased was the brother of the driver of the vehicle (motorcycle).

5. The appellant even felt that the Tribunal granted compensation despite the fact that the claimants did not prove the dependency by holding that claimants were entitled for compensation being legal representative and that they were dependent on deceased. The Insurance Company was made liable, which finding is assailed as perverse.

6. It is further contended by Insurance Company that the original policy was not produced by the owner despite that the Tribunal did not hold that there was breach of policy condition as the tractor was attached with a trolley and trolley was not insured by it.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the driving licence to drive the tractor was either fake or say a learner’s licence despite that liability is fixed on the appellant. The liability of the Insurance Company under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will have to be determined from the facts of the case. The defences, which are available to the Insurance Company have been taken by them that the licence was a learner’s licence.

8. PW1 has stated that a thresher and the iron rods were loaded on the tractor trolley. Defence Witness No.1 Ram Asrey has stated that a thresher with a machine used for agricultural purpose to cut fodder was there, therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Santlal vs. Rajesh AIR 2017 SC 4054 will not permit this Court to take a different view then that taken by the Tribunal that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes. This takes this Court to the question whether the vehicle was plied against the terms of the policy, namely, that it was used for non-agricultural purposes. The fact that it had a thresher with the trolley will not permit this Court to take a different view and Insurance Company canno