JUDGMENT
Aloke Chakraborti, J.
1. This appeal arose out of a judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the claimant’s application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was allowed awarding Rs. 25,000/- and the respondent insurance company was directed to pay the amount. The insurance company preferred the present appeal against the said judgment.
2. The facts relevant for the present purpose are that the victim died of a motor vehicle accident on July 27, 1992 and the claimant filed the claim application. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the victim was travelling in the offending tractor at the time of accident which caused the death of the victim. As the victim was travelling in violation of the terms and conditions under which the tractor could not carry passenger, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent strongly denied the contention of the appellant insurance company and contended that the claimants are entitled to get compensation from the insurance company particularly when the insurance company has failed to show any terms and conditions of the contract of insurance whereunder the tractor was prevented from carrying passengers.
4. On behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, reported in 2003(1) TAG 1 : 2003(1) WBLR (SC) 605 decided by the Supreme Court of India, Ramjilal v. Onkarlal, reported in 2003(2) TAC 540 decided by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and Raja Beti v. Ramshri, reported in 2003(2) TAC 731 decided by a learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court for contending that as the victim met with the accident while travelling as passenger in goods vehicle, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It is stated that the offending tractor was insured for agricultural and forest purposes when got involved in an accident causing death of a passenger of a tractor, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
5. Considering the above contentions, we find that the facts are admitted that the victim was travelling by the tractor when accident occurred causing death of the victim. The pleading in paragraph 23 of the claim application also shows the said fact. In the written statement the insurance company did not allege any violation of terms of the agreement of insurance as victim was being carried by the tractor. The owner in his written statement referred to the insurance policy and stated about the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation because of the said accident. The insurance company filed an additional written statement after the owner filed his written statement and the insurer stated that the deceased was the passenger of the tractor and insurance issued by the said insurer does not cover the risk of passenger carried in the tractor and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. But the witnesses of the claimant were not cross-examined by the insurance company as regards their allegation that carrying passenger by the tractor was contrary to the terms of the insurance and for the said reason no compensation is payable by the insurance company. Insurance company also did not examine any witnesses to prove the said allegation. It does not appear from the Lower Court Records that the insurance policy was proved by the insurance company for showing that there was term contained in the insurance policy which prohibited passenger being carried in the said tractor.
6. In the aforesaid factual background, we have considered the law cited on behalf of the appellant. In the case of Asha Rani (supra) vehicle involved was a goods vehicle wherein the deceased was travelling as a passenger. Law has been decided in the said factual background and provisions of law contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to its amendment of 1994 was under consideration. It has been held that the insurer will not be liable or from paying compensation to the owner of goods or its authorized representative on being carried in a goods vehicle when that vehicle meets with an accident and the owner of goods on its representative does or suffers any bodily injury. In the case of Ramjilal (supra) it appears that the victim lost his life by reason of the accident when he was travelling in a tractor. In the said case, the insurance policy was filed by the insurance company which was marked exhibit and absence of liability of the insurance company was upheld finding from the policy that the vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes and not for any other purposes.
7. From the records, it does not appear that the insurance policy was produced and proved in this case. Therefore, we are not in a position to find out the terms of the insurance agreement. We do not therefore, have any material to show the tractor in the present case was insured prescribing use for agricultural purpose or for carrying goods only. Therefore, the law cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be applied and no interference can be made on that ground. No other contention having been raised, the present appeal failed and is hereby dismissed.
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.
8. I agree.