The insurance company must prove any alleged breach of policy terms to avoid liability; mere allegations without evidence are insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) challenging the award dated 07.02.2005 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in MACC No.53/2003 where the learned Claims Tribunal directed the respondent no.3/insurance company to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,79,500/- to the claimants and thereafter, the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the entire amount from the respondent no.1 and 2.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short “MACT”).

3. The brief facts, necessary for adjudication of this case are that on 06.04.2003 at about 5:00 pm, Mahesh Singh along with Arvind Kumar Pandey were returning after filling sand in Tractor No.MP-21-9242 and Trolley No.MP-21-9243, the said tractor driven by its driver/respondent no.1 in rash and negligently and the said tractor overturned, due to which, Mahesh Singh died on the spot. The matter was reported to the police alleging that the accident took place, as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor bearing Tractor No.MP-21-9242 and based on the complaint lodged by Ramraj Singh Raghuvanshi to the Badera Police Station registered a case in Crime No.21/2003 for offences under section 279 and 304-A of IPC. After completion of investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maiher against the accused driver (first respondent) for having committed an offences punishable u/s 279 and 304A of IPC.

4. The first applicant is the wife, second and third applicants are the parents of the deceased who filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation a sum of Rs.5,75,000/-, on account of the death of deceased in the accident.

5. The respondent no.1 and 2 filed their written statement denied the allegations made in the claim petition and further averred that the first respondent was having a valid driving license and not violated any of the conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the respondent no.3/insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

6. The third respondent/insurance company filed written statement contending, inter-alia, that the offending vehicle tractor-trolley was used by the first and second respondents other than the agricultural purpose. It is further averred that the claim made by the claimants is imaginary and for wrongful gain. The deceased Mahesh Singh was neither a labour nor the employee of the second respondent, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Further averred that on the date of the incident i.e. 06.04.2003 there was no valid driving licnese to drive the tractor trolley by the first respondent, further averred that the said offending vehicle used for different purpose other than the agricultural work, therefore, the first and second respondents violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, claimants are not entitled for any compensation, hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 02.08.2021 :-

(i). Whether on the date of the incident, the first respondent Mukesh Kumar driven Trolley No.MP-21-9243 attached with Tractor No.MP21-9242 in rash and negligently and caused the death of Mahesh Singh Raghuvansh ?

(ii). Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation from the respondents? If yes, then from whom and how much.

(iii.). Whether the first respondent did not have any valid license to drive the vehicle ?

(iv). Whether the tractor-trolley was being used for the purpose other than agricultural purpose is violation of insurance policy ?

(v). Aid and cost ?

8. In order to establish their claim at the time of inquiry AW-1 to AW-3 were examined; Exhibits-P/1 to P/6 got marked on behalf of appellants/claimants. No oral evidence was adduced and no do