Alok Singh, J.

1. The facts and questions of law in all the appeals are common, therefore, all the appeals are taken together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 18.12.2009, one Bolero (Jeep) bearing registration no. UA 06 F 3639 was going from Jaspur to Delhi. On Moradabad – Delhi National highway, near Punjabi Dhaba at about 06.00 a.m. one tractor bearing registration no. UP 21 T 2304 hit the Bolero (Jeep). In the accident, Shamim (Driver), Danish, Zabir, Jamsheed, Shakir received injuries and they succumbed to injuries. Shakir Hussain also received injuries but survived. Saleem Ahmad reported the matter to the police. Legal heirs of the deceased and injured Shakir Hussain filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded claims against the insurance company of tractor. Feeling aggrieved, the insurance company of tractor i.e. the United Insurance Company approached this Court.

3. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company submits that present is the case of contributory negligence, as there was head on collision between the two vehicles; trolley attached with tractor was not insured and at the relevant time, it was not used for agricultural purposes but for commercial purposes; when there is head on collision, then it must be a case of contributory negligence. He further submits that had the driver of Bolero vigilant, this accident would have been avoided. He submits that in the present case, doctrine of “res ipsa loquitor” comes into play. He further argues that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license; and tractor was used for commercial purpose. He further submits that owner of the tractor himself stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero’s driver. For the contributory negligence and to apply principles of “res ipsa loquitor”, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Appeal From Order No. 259 of 2006 (United Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Neema Parihar) decided on 04.05.2009 and judgment passed by Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kamlaben Valjibhai Vora reported in 2002 ACJ 780.

4. Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, owner of the tractor, submits that tractor was not used for any commercial purpose at the time of accident. The tractor was carrying bricks for making wall of tube well. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal.

5. Mr. Tarun Pandey, Advocate for the claimants submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, let me now examine first whether it is case of contributory negligence.

7. From perusal of site plan, it transpires that road was very wide and there was divider between the roads. The road was so wide that four trucks can be passed simultaneously. Since it was a divider road and Bolero was on its own correct side and the tractor was coming from wrong side i.e. from the opposite direction and hit the Bolero, which resulted into the accident. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence. It has also come on the record that Bolero was going slowly, which was fructified by the site plan, as Bolero was going on its extreme left side.

8. So far as judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in the case of Neema Parihar (supra), I do not find its relevance in the present case. In the case of Neema Parihar, Union of India had not adduced any evidence against the offending vehicle, therefore, the learned High Court presumed that it was case of contributory negligence whereas in the present case, site plan and injured witness, speak in volume that accident occurred due to rash and negl