Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dt. 1.5.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.2.2001 when the appellant was standing at the Salempur Bus Stand for going to Gangapur, Tractor No. RJ -25 -R -7910 came, which was going towards Gangapur. When the claimant asked for lift in the tractor, he was allowed. The tractor was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and when it reached at Salempur Ghati, it collided with a Jeep No. RJ -26 -P -0546, which was also being driven by its driver in a very high speed. Due to the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained injuries.
(2.) THEREAFTER FIR was lodged, claim petition was filed, notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed and the learned Tribunal vide its impugned award dt. 1.5.2004 partly allowed the claim petition and decreed an amount of Rs. 85,000/ - in favour of claimant and the said amount has been directed to be recovered from non -claimants No. 3 to 5 and 6, while claim petition against non claimants No. 1 and 2 has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant -non claimant No. 6 National Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant canvassed that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality while directing the appellant to pay the compensation amount and has ignored the law and fact that there was no privity of contract between the insurer and insured to cover the risk of such passengers in tractor as the tractor is not meant for carrying passengers. The tractor was being insured only for agriculture purposes. The premium to cover the risk only of driver was charged and not to cover the risk of any passenger. In such circumstances, the direction regarding payment of the compensation against the appellant is absolutely erroneous and same is liable to be quashed and set -aside against the appellant Insurance Company. He has further contended that as per the Registration Certificate of the tractor, the sitting capacity in the tractor is only for one person i.e. driver. As per the pleadings and evidence of the appellant -Insurance company it is clear that the claimant was travelling in the tractor by sitting over the mudguard. As such the claimant himself was also negligent for the accident and no one can be held liable to pay compensation. The risk of such passenger was not covered under the Policy as no premium was charged for such passenger. He has further contended that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asha Rani, reported in : 2002 (III) ACC (SC) 753, in such type of cases, no liability can be casted upon the appellant -Insurance Company. He has further contended that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance company.;