JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants. None has put in appearance on behalf of the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 5, however, Sri Asit Srivastava, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 6.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 assailing the award dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Hardoi in Claim Petition No. 282 of 2002 whereby in a death case a sum of Rs. 1,53,250/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents with a direction that the award would be satisfied by the Insurance Company who would have a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the owner of the vehicle has preferred the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has primarily disputed the involvement of his tractor in the alleged accident which is said to have occurred on 21.07.2002. The thrust of the submission is that the appellant had got a new Tractor Swaraj for agricultural purposes and that he was not utilizing the said Tractor for any other purposes except for agricultural activities. The appellant did not rent out his tractor for any hire purpose and moreover on the alleged date of the incident, the appellant had taken his tractor to the Mandi from where he had received a receipt indicating his presence there and the distance from the said Mandi to the place of accident is about 140 Kms. and it was not possible for the said tractor to have been at the Mandi unloaded the fodder dry straw (bhoosa) and thereafter be at the place where the accident occurred.

4. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the manner in which the accident is said to have occurred is most improbable, inasmuch as, it is stated that on the given date and time i.e. on 21.07.2002 at around 06:00 P.M. It is alleged that the appellant was driving the tractor and trolley which had a number of peoples seated who were returning from a cremation and at the given spot, the tractor upturned and fell in a canal. The trolley also upturned and the deceased got crushed under the trolley and expired.

5. It is urged that it is the case of the claimants that apart from the deceased few other persons seated in the trolley also received injuries but none turned up as eye-witness to depose for the claimants.

6. It is further submitted that it is attempted to show that the tractor had fallen in a canal but the depositions of the two claimants-witnesses are at variance on the aforesaid point i.e. to say that they only talked about the trolley but none pointed out towards the tractor.

7. It is thus urged that even the First Information Report which was lodged was about after 2 hours by a passerby and yet there was no means of removing the tractor from the canal and had the accident actually happened then even the tractor would have been found at the given place but all such evidence is missing which clearly gives an indication that the tractor of the appellant has been falsely implicated and a specific plea had also been raised in the pleadings that there was enmity between the family of the claimants and the appellant due to which he has been implicated in the instant case and for all the aforesaid reasons the award could not have been passed against the appellant.

8. Alternatively, it has been further urged by learned counsel for the appellant that even if at all the award may sustain but since the tr