[2025:RJ-JP:20219] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 422/2009 1. Jamil S/o Kamruddin, R/o Jhiwana, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar Owner Of Vehicle 2. Kamru S/o Hurmat, R/o Jhiwana, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar 3. Hurmat S/o Sitab, R/o Jhiwana, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar Owner Of Vehicle ----Appellants Versus 1. Smt. Sunita Widow Of Shri Suresh, 2. Vikas aged about 5 years S/o Late Shri Suresh-Minor 3. Kumari Rekha aged about 3 years D/o Late Shri Suresh- Minor 4. Kumari Komal aged about 2 years D/o Late Shri Suresh- Minor All Through their Mother Smt. Sunita, 5. Amar Singh aged about 65 years S/o Shri Shyosingh, 6. Smt. Chandari aged about 60 years W/o Shri Amar Singh, All R/o Jhiwana, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar 7. The United India Insurance Company Through Its Branch Manager, Alwar (Insurance Company Of Vehicle) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Mahavir Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/05/2025 1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarhbas, [2025:RJ-JP:20219] (2 of 3) [CMA-422/2009] Alwar (Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarhbas, Alwar in claim application No.68/2005 titled as Smt. Sunita & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. & Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and compensation of Rs.3,17,400/-(including Rs.50,000/- paid as interim maintenance) has been awarded on account of death of Suresh. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of the owners of the vehicle, merely questioning the finding, whereby the Insurance Company has been exonerated and liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellants. 3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding arrived at by the MACT Court exonerating the Insurance Company is bad in law and is liable to be set aside by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned award. 5. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 6. From the evidence on record, it is well proved that the tractor in question is being used for commercial purposes, whereas it was insured for the purpose of agricultural work, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no violation of policy thus the impugned order is contrary to law, lacks merit. 7. A bare perusal of the judgment reveals that the evidence on record led by the parties in this regard has been considered in its entirety and objectivity and the findings arrived at by the tribunal [2025:RJ-JP:20219] (3 of 3) [CMA-422/2009] that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose, other than agriculture cannot be said to be contrary to record or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in its appellate jurisdiction. 8. 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 respondent-claimant. 9. That from the record of the case, it is evident that there is violation of the terms of the Insurance policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated in the present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the considered view that there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order, fastening the liability on the appellant, the appeal is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /40