[2025:RJ-JP:18236] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 229/2006 1. Netram S/o Ghasi Lal Meena, R/o Ali Nagar, Tehsil Uniyara, Distt. Tonk Deleted From The Array Of Respondent Vide Order Dated 8.4.2003 Passed By The Learned Court 2. Hazari Lal S/o Ranglal Meena, R/o Garadwas, Laxmipura, Distt. Sawai Madhopur 3. Chhitarlal S/o Hazari Lal Meena, R/o Garadwas, Laxmipura, Distt. Sawai Madhopur 4. Ramphool S/o Ranglal Meena, R/o Garadwas, Laxmipura, Distt. Sawai Madhopur 5. Ramkesh Alias Ramesh S/o Ramphool Minor Through Guardian Father Ramphool S/o Ranglal, R/o Garadwas, Laxmipura, Distt. Sawai Madhopur ----Appellants Versus 1. Suwa Lal S/o Narain Meena 2. Murari Lal S/o Suwa Lal Meena 3. Mukesh S/o Suwa Lal Meena, Minor Through Natural Guardian Father Suwalal S/o Narain Meena, R/o Laxmi Pura Roojhi Ki Jopri Tehsil Chauth Ka Barwara, District Sawaimadhopur 4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Subash Bazar, Tonk ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain Mr. Raghunandan Sharma Mr. Abhinav Srivastav Ms. Kritika Rajawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 30/04/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL): 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellant against the judgment and award dated 19.09.2005 passed by learned Additional District [2025:RJ-JP:18236] (2 of 5) [CMA-229/2006] Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk, and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Tonk in claim petition No.127/2004 (2611/2001) (183/1999) whereby an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimant and the Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability of making payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed claim petition wherein it was submitted that on 14.05.1998, an accident took place wherein the deceased was going in a tractor and on account of tractor having an over turn, death was caused. 3. The claim petition has been contested by the appellants by filing reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and it has been contended by the appellants that no accident was occurred with tractor No.RJ 25R 4958, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. The respondent No.4- Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and contended that the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes, not for carrying the passengers and in the present case, the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a passenger, therefore, the risk of the deceased was not covered in terms of policy. 5. In support of the claim petition, the claimant examined two witnesses i.e. AW-1 Sua Lal and AW-2 Sitaram and produced 9 documents i.e. Ex.1 FIR, Ex.2 Charge-sheet, Ex.3 Parcha Bayan, Ex.4 Naksha Moka, Ex.5 Post-mortem report, Ex.6 Notice under Section 133 MV Act, Ex.7 Supurdginama, Ex.8 Registration and Ex.9 Insurance Cover note, however, the respondents-non- applicants have not led any evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:18236] (3 of 5) [CMA-229/2006] 6. After hearing arguments of the parties, the learned MACT Court awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the appellants but the Insurance Company was exonerated due to violation of the terms of the policy. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order passed by learned MACT Court is arbitrary and perverse. It was further submitted that there is discrepancy in the tractor number mentioned in the FIR and in the claim petition, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that initially because of some bona fide error in the FIR tractor number was mentioned as RJ 25R 1758 but later on during course of investigation, it was revealed that correct tractor number was RJ 25R 4958 and after conclusion of the investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed against the driver of the tractor No. RJ 25R 4958, therefore, the contentions so advanced by learned counsel for the appellant are untenable in the eyes of law. 9. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. The prime contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the discrepancy with regard to tractor number in the FIR and in the claim petition the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. Bare perusal of the record reveals that initially the claimants have filed the claim petition with regard to the tractor number RJ 25R 1758 but later on, the claimants filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking correction in the [2025:RJ-JP:18236] (4 of 5) [CMA-229/2006] pleadings with regard to the tractor number and the same was allowed and the said amended order was never challenged by the appellant, thus, attained finality. 12. It is also evident from the record that initially in the FIR due to some bona fide mistake at the end of the third party i.e. Sitaram the tractor number was incorrectly mentioned as RJ 25R 1758 but, during the course of investigation it was found that the correct tractor number is RJ 25R 4958 against which charge-sheet was filed, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that there is discrepancy or false involvement of tractor No. RJ 25R 4958 lacks merit. 13. It is also an important fact that the appellants having raised a plea of false involvement of vehicle despite granted opportunity did not lead any evidence to controvert the statement of the claimants, therefore, the findings of the learned MACT Court cannot be termed as perverse or based on no evidence. 14. It is also relevant to note that the order of amendment in pleading was never assailed by the appellant, thus, submissions of the appellant regarding discrepancy in vehicle number is not tenable in the eye of law. 15. The learned MACT Court after considering the fact that tractor in question is being used to carry passenger and as per the terms of policy the risk of passenger is not covered and since the tractor in question is being used in violation of terms and conditions, therefore, the learned MACT Court rightly exonerated the insurance company from the payment of compensation. 16. That apart from above discussion, from a bare perusal of the impugned order it is evident that in the impugned award the [2025:RJ-JP:18236] (5 of 5) [CMA-229/2006] learned MACT has considered the pleading of the parties, oral and documentary evidence in detail, thus, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned award. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. 18. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -106