[2025:RJ-JP:19861] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2266/2005 1. Hori Lal s/o Shri Fondi 2. Santo w/o Shri Horilal Both r/o village Bhaisena, Tehsil and District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. Savitri w/o Late Shri Satyendra Kumar, r/o Sastanagar, Dholpur (Raj.) 2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Behind Old Power House, Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents/Non-claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Jain with Mr. Dushyant Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 12/05/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act of 1988") assailing the award dated 16.07.2005 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter to be referred to as "MACT, Court") in MAC Case No.219/1999 titled as "Hori Lal & Anr. Vs. Savitri & Anr."), whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 07.04.1999, at about 2:00 PM, near the middle school in village Bhaisna, a Tractor Trolley Bearing Registration No.RJ-11/R-4232 was going wherein a water pump was lying. Due to rash and [2025:RJ-JP:19861] (2 of 4) [CMA-2266/2005] negligent driving of the Tractor driver, the Tractor and Trolley over turned and as a result of the said accident, that water pump fell upon the deceased Rakesh, due to which deceased sustained injuries and later died. The claimants are parents of the deceased and at the time of the accident, age of the deceased was 20 years and he used to earn about Rs.4,000/- per month from the business of live stock and agriculture. Thus, claimant prayed for a compensation of Rs.4,30,000/-. 3. After service of the notices on 19.10.2000, the non- claimants No.1, did not appear in the Court, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against her. 4. The non-claimant No.2-Insurance Company, filed its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition. In the reply, it was stated that the Tractor bearing No.RJ-11/R-4232 was not involved in the accident further that the said Tractor was used for commercial purposes, which was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also stated that the driver of the said vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Furthermore, it was stated that the deceased died due to his own negligence. Ultimately, the Insurance Company prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the learned MACT misread the evidence of the claimant, documents available on record and erred in holding that the deceased was driving the vehicle, whereas he was not driving the vehicle. He further submits that the Court below seriously erred in misreading the evidence of AW.1, therefore, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned award may be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:19861] (3 of 4) [CMA-2266/2005] 6. In this appeal, despite service upon the respondent No.1, none appeared before this Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the impugned award is based on a correct appreciation of facts and law and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 9. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the deceased himself was driving the Tractor and it has also come on record that the deceased illegally took the keys of the said tractor and that the deceased was driving the vehicle in unauthorized way without the consent of the owner, and from the evidence of AW.1- Rammurti and AW.2-B. K. Srivastava as well as, as per Ex.3 and FR (NAW-1), it is reflected that the accident solely occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. 10. That in case of Shri Surendra Kumar & Anr. Vs. Shri Narayanlal & Anr. reported in (2012) R.A.R. 41 (Raj.), this Court held that if the tractor was being used for the purpose other than agriculture than the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. 11. It has also come on record that at the time of accident, though, the vehicle was insured but only for the purposes of agriculture but the Tractor-Trolley was being used for commercial [2025:RJ-JP:19861] (4 of 4) [CMA-2266/2005] purposes, therefore, the Insurance Company has been exonerated. A careful scanning of the reasons given by the learned MACT reveals that the impugned order is perfectly just and proper and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Accordingly, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. 12. The present appeal is dismissed. 13. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/39