JUDGMENT

This Appeal has been filed against the award granted in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2003 dated 09.01.2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Ramanathapuram.

2.The appellant is the 2nd respondent, the respondents 1 to 5 are the petitioners and the 6th respondent is the first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2003.

3.The respondents 1 to 5 have filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of one Vellaichamy, who died in an accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation. Against which, the appellant preferred this appeal.

4.The brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2003 is as follows:-

on 14.07.2003, at about 2.30 p.m, when the petitioner rented a Tractor TN-63-P-1614 and after filing diesel, returning to his village M.Karisalkulam, the driver of the Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the deceased Vellaichamy to fell down from the Tractor and the iron plough pierced him and he died on the spot. The deceased Vellaichamy was aged about 30 years. At the time of his death, he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the vehicle and they are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.

3,00,000/- to the claimants.

5.The brief substance of the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.352 of 2003 is as follows:-

The driver of the vehicle followed the road rules properly.

The accident happened only because of the negligence of the deceased, who tried to jump from the Tractor, while the Tractor was running. The age and income of the deceased has to be proved.

6.Two witnesses were examined on the side of the petitioners and EX.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were marked. One witness was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.R1 was marked on the side of the respondent. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation. Against which, the second respondent preferred this appeal.

7.The case of the appellant is that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of a passenger who travelled in a Tractor, which is a non-transport vehicle without any space for seating a passenger. Carrying of a person in a Tractor is not permissible in law and there is no policy coverage for such persons. The appellant has to be exonerated.

8.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that only a driver alone can travel in a Tractor. The deceased is a gratuitous passenger. The Tractor was used only for commercial purpose. The owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation for the death of the gratuitous passenger. A judgment of this Court reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 662 is cited wherein it was decided as follows:-

“ Tractor not attached with Trailer and deceased travelled sitting on Mudguard of Tractor – Tractor without Trolley cannot be termed as Goods vehicle – Persons travelling in Tractor being gratuitous passengers not entitled to Compensation – Violation of Policy conditions – Tribunal rightly exonerated Insurer and fastened liability on Owner of vehicle.“

9.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the deceased was not entitled to travel in a Tractor. The Tractor has a seating capacity for only one person, i.e., is driver. Nobody is permitted to travel on the mudguard of a Tractor. A judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench reported in

2020 ACJ 594 is cited wherein it was decided as follows:-

“Death of a person travelling on mudguard of Tractor when he fell down and was crushed under the tyre of the tractor – Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that tractor is an agricultural device and deceased was not entitled to travel on tractor as tractor has seating capacity of one person, I.e., driver and there was breach of policy – Tractor is not a passenger vehicle and nobody is permitted to travel on the mudguard of tractor – Whether there was breach of policy and insurance company is abso