Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87161 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 670 of 2021 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Kusum Devi And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- Deep Chand Singh,Vashishtha Tiwari Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement and award dated 01.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Deoria in M.A.C.P. No.24 of 2015, by which the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,59,500/- along with 7% simple interest to the claimants/respondents. 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that admittedly the deceased was travelling on the offending tractor i.e Tractor No. U.P.52 U-6420. It is contended that the offending tractor was insured for agricultural purpose, and therefore, the deceased who was a gratuitous passenger was not covered under the insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in fastening the liability upon the appellant Insurance Company. It is submitted that it is a case of breach of insurance policy, therefore, the Tribunal should have permitted the appellant to pay and recover the awarded amount after satisfying the award. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appellant Insurance Company failed to prove that the gratuitous passenger was not covered under the insurance policy. It is submitted that the insurance policy was not proved in accordance with law, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in fastening the liability upon the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 5. Be that as it may, though the appellant Insurance Company has taken specific plea in the written statement that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, and was not covered under the insurance policy inasmuch as the offending tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and gratuitous passenger was not covered under the insurance policy, but the aforesaid fact has not been proved by the appellant Insurance Company by proving the insurance policy and by bringing the relevant evidence on record which could establish that the offending tractor was insured only for agricultural purpose and gratuitous passenger was not covered under the insurance policy. 6. 6. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 NS Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad