The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company and the owner in case of negligence under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. Heard Sri Lalit Belwal, counsel for the appellants and Sri K.K. Sah and Sri K.N.

Joshi, counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 21-8-2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Udham Singh Nagar.

3. The claimant Jagdish Kumar preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by Sri Mohit Kumar in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimant on the fateful day on 226-2003, deceased was going to his maternal home by tractor No. UA 06A-5006 along with his sister. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently due to which it collided with a tanker and Mohit Kumar fell down from the tractor due to heavy jerk. He sustained grievous injuries in the accident. The injured had lost his eyesight and he was admitted in Deep Nursing Home, Rudrapur and thereafter he was treated in different hospitals at Delhi, Sitapur and Chennai. The claimant claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation.

4. Opposite parties have contested the claim petition and have filed their respective written statements. Opposite parties NO.1 and 2 owner of the vehicle and driver have filed joint written statement and have submitted that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving. The driver had a valid driving licence and the vehicle was validly insured with the United India Insurance Company and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

5. Respondent no. 3 Surjeet Singh has admitted that the tractor was registered in his name. He also pleaded that the driver of the tractor had valid driving licence and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

6. The insurance company has admitted that the tractor involved in the accident was insured with it but no information of the accident has been given to it. The tractor was registered for agriculture purposes but the tractor was being plied for carrying passengers in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

7. In order to prove the case, the claimant has examined P.W.1 Jagdish Kumar P.W.2 Vijai Kumar and P.W.3 Smt. Radha Rani. The opposite parties have examined D.W.1 Amar Singh, D.W.2 Jagtar Singh and D.W.3 Satpal Singh. Both the parties have also filed documentary evidence also.

8. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant, the Claims Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver.

9. So far as the compensation is concerned the Tribunal has recorded the findings that the claimant has incurred Rs. 11,621.00 in the treatment of his son. He was also granted Rs. 15,0001- for pain and suffering and Rs. 1,50,000/- for permanent disability. Thus a total sum of Rs. 1,76,6211- was granted to the claimant as compensation along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 5% per annum.

10. The Claims Tribunal has also held that the tractor was being used for carrying passengers in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the owners and the driver of the tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

11 . Feeling aggrieved the owners and driver of the tractor have preferred the present appeal.

12. The Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance company on the ground that the vehicle in question was an agriculture vehicle and was used for non-agriculture purpose, contrary to the terms of the insurance policy.

13. The Claimant has not filed any cross-objection or any independent appeal against the impugned award, hence, the question of quantum is not involved and the only question involved in this appeal is about liability of the Insurance Company.

14. Although in this case the appellants owners and driver of the tractor have not come with clean hand and they came up to defend the claim of the claimant by completely denying the accident involving their tractor No. UA 06A-5006. They based their