Judgment:
FAO-5321-5322-5323-2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (I) FAO-5321-2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2014 Ashok Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus Amit and others ...Respondents (II) FAO-5322-2012 (O&M) Ashok Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus Shanker and others ...Respondents (III) FAO-5323-2012 (O&M) Ashok Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus Shakuntla and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja for the appellants.
Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent-claimants Sethi Atul 2014.02.19 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-5321-5322-5323-2012 -2- Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent-Insurance Company.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants- owners and driver, challenging the impugned Award dated 03.08.2012, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh, (for short, 'the Tribunal').The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the offending vehicle, i.e.tractor bearing registration No.HR-52-B-1521, was being plied as a commercial vehicle whereas, the same was insured only for agricultural purposes.
The cement and crusher loaded in the tractor-trolley was to be used for construction of tubewell hut, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was not being used for agriculture purposes.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the liability has rightly been fastened upon the appellants.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
It is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the tractor-trolley being driven by the appellant-driver, was loaded Sethi Atul 2014.02.19 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO-5321-5322-5323-2012 -3- with crusher and cement.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, it has nowhere been pleaded that the material was to be used for reconstruction of tubewell hut.
No document has been placed on record by the appellants to show that appellant No.2 is the owners of the land wherein said tubewell was installed.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the offending vehicle was being used for commercial purposes at the time of the accident.
The view taken by the learned Tribunal cannot be substituted with any other view.
Dismissed.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellants in all the three appeals be placed at the disposal of the Tribunal for reimbursement.
10.02.2014 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE Sethi Atul 2014.02.19 09:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh