Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101514 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 499 of 2015 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Kiran And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Kapil Kumar Soni,Vinod Kumar,Vinod Kumar Soni Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 28.10.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Jhansi in M.A.C.P.No.347 of 2012. 3. Challenging the said award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is a case where the deceased did not die in the accident with tractor no.HRQ-0934 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending tractor'). It is contended that it has come in the Panchnama that the tractor turned turtle and the deceased was crushed under the tractor, and the manner in which the accident had taken place reflects that the deceased was travelling in the tractor, and thus, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was hit by the tractor is perverse and not sustainable in law. It is further contended that the owner has set up a case that the offending tractor was driven by Ram Singh whereas charge sheet has been filed against one Badam Singh. Accordingly, it is contended that in order to avoid the liability, the owner has set up a false driver whereas as per the charge sheet, the driver of the tractor was Badam Singh. It is further contended that since, no driving licence of the driver of the tractor was filed on record, therefore, the owner has committed breach of insurance policy, and the Tribunal should have given the right of recovery. 4. Be that as it may, so far as the claim set up by the appellant that the deceased was travelling on the tractor and he came under the tractor because of the fact that the tractor was over turned, and thus, it was not a case of accident of third party by the tractor, and therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding the negligence of the deceased in the accident, the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was hit by the tractor is based upon the testimony of PW2. The insurance company did not lead any evidence to rebut the testimony of PW2. The insurance company could not prove by leading any evidence that the deceased was travelling on the tractor at the time of accident and the tractor turned turtle and deceased came under it, due to which he suffered injuries and died. 5. Since,the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was hit by the tractor is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, and thus, being finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 6. So far as the question with regard to breach of insurance policy is concerned, the claimant has impleaded Badam Singh as driver. The owner of the offending tractor has produced the driving licence of Badam Singh. 7. Though, the police has submitted charge sheet against Badam Singh, but in the absence of any evidence led by the insurance company to prove that Badam Singh, who was named in the charge sheet was driving the offending tractor at the time of accident, this Court does not find any illegality in the finding returned by the Tribunal that Ram Singh was driving the offending tractor at the time of accident. Thus, the Tribunal has committed no illegality in holding that the tractor was being driven by the Ram Singh at the time of accident and the owner of the tractor has not committed any preach of insurance policy. 8. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 NS Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad