JUDGMENT
R.D. Shukla, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3.4.1984 of Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, passed in Claim Case No. 37/82, whereby the respondent No. 1 has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,00/ for the death of her Son Rama with a direction that the same shall be recovered from the appellants and one more person i.e. Ayub Khan s/o Mehtab Khan who was shown as Non-appellant No. 1-A in the claim petition and has not been made party here.
2. The brief history of the ease is that the claimant Deokibai filed a petition with the assertion that on the dale of accident i.e. 29.9.1981, at about 5.30 p.m. her son was travelling in the motor tractor, which was driven by Non-applicant No. 2 Abdul Rehman (appellant No. 1 here) the Tractor was owned by N.A. 1 and N. A. 1-A i.e. Latif Khan and Ayub Khan sons of Mehtab Khan). It was also asserted that because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle it turned turtle and thereafter turned up side down. Rama sustained injuries and died in consequence thereof. The claimant further asserted that Rama was aged 15-16 years. and was working as a Milk vendor and that the claimant was depending on her. NAs. denied the claim and fsleaded that Rama was an unwanted passenger and was a trespasser in the trolley to the Motor tractor. The Insurance Company also denied the claim and further pleaded that firstly the driver was not having licence and secondly that the insurance was not for the labours.
3. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 12,000/- as above by exonerating the Insurance company. It appears during the course of arguments the Counsel for the parties agreed that the Insurance Company is not liable for making good the loss as is observed in para 9 of the judgement of the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal by the driver and owner of the vehicle.
4. The contention of she learned Counsel for the appellants is that the Insurance Company is liable for making the payment and that any concession made by the Counsel is beyond the powers vested in him.
As against it learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the policy cover the risk of Motor Tractor Trolley and the labours employed therein. It does not cover the risk of passenger travelling on the Trolley, it is a different thing that it covers third party.
The Counsel for the claimant has simply submitted that he is interested in the recovery of compensation and further prayed that the interest be enhanced from 6% to 12%.
5. I have gone through the policy (Annexure-D/1) filed in the case. Admittedly the vehicle was a Motor Tractor used for agricultural operations. It had a trolley behind it. The Motor Tractor owner and driver can employ labours for helping in the agricultural operations and for carrying she loads of agricultural articles and in that eventuality if any of the labour employed by the owner of the tractor gets insured and that risk may be covered by the insurance Policy, but as per the pleading of the claimant himself Rama was a passenger. He was being taken on Trolley as a passenger. He was neither a labour nor a third party. If also cannot be said that he was a trespasser. Had it been so he should be asked to get down from the Trolley itself. The finding of the Tribunal that Rama was a passenger therefore appears to be correct, calls for no interference.
6. If an owner of the Motor Tractor or driver carries the passenger as against the condition of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to make good the loss or can not be compelled to pay the compensation on behalf of the insured.
7. Now, so far as the concession made by the learned Counsel for the parties are concerned, that cannot be agitated at this stage. Even in the memo of appeal it has not been asserted that the concession made by the Counsels was in any way mala fide or because of some extraneous consideration. If a party appoints a Counsel he is bound by the admissions and concessions made by the Counsel. If a party has not any grievance against the Counsel for the negligence deal in the remedy lies elsewhere. In view of the fact that Rama was a passenger in the Motor Trolley the owner and the driver of the Tractor were not authorised to carry him and therefore they have rightly been held responsible for payment of compensation.
8. Now so far as the rate of interest is concerned, though it is true that a lesser rate has been awarded in this case, as there is no cross-objection for the enhancement of the compensation or for the enhancement of the rate of interest, it would not be proper to make any interference in respect thereof.
As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.