Judgment:
ORDER
A.K. Gohil, J.
1. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award passed on 28.3.1997 in Claim Case No. 184/94 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barwaha.
2. The submission of Mr. Dandwate, learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company has filed this appeal on two grounds, (1) that in the criminal case the owner of the vehicle has admitted that the driver Dinesh who was driving the vehicle was not having the valid driving licence and the Tribunal has not considered this admission of the owner and has committed an illegality of not exonerating the Insurance Company, (2) that the Tribunal has also not considered the case of breach of condition of insurance policy, as the owner was using the vehicle for other than agricultural purposes.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In para 19 of the award the Trial Court has rejected the submission of the Insurance Company on the ground that the aforesaid statement that driver Dinesh was not having a driving licence was made by the owner while taking the vehicle on Supurdgi and a statement made at the time of taking vehicle on Supurdgi the same cannot be treated as a conclusive proof. In the same para it was further held by the Tribunal that D.W. 1 Padam Kumar Jain who is the Branch Manager and was examined on behalf of the Insurance Company has admitted in his statement that he is not having any other proof to prove that the driver Dinesh who was driving the tractor was having the valid licence or not. The Insurance Company has not examined any person from the Office of the Regional Transport Authority, who is issuing the driving licence whether the driver Dinesh was having a valid driving licence or not. The Insurance Company has also not summoned the driver of the vehicle in evidence, therefore, in view of the aforesaid evidence on record, I do not find that the Tribunal has committed any illegality in recording such a finding about the making of the Insurance Company liable for the payment of amount of compensation. There is also no evidence on record regarding breach of policy conditions. The Tribunal found that the tractor-trolley was being used by the owner for the agricultural work and not for commercial use.
4. After considering and perusing the evidence on record, the finding recorded by the Tribunal appears to be legal and justified and I do not see any ground for interference. Accordingly this appeal filed on this ground alone has no merit and is dismissed. The respondents have filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. Considering the evidence available on record, the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation to the respondents-claimants, looking to the injuries and medical evidence on record. P.W. 3 Dr. Poonaji Birley has stated in his examination-in-chief that there is disablement of any kind to the claimant. Therefore, in view of this medical evidence on record, I do not find any case for enhancement of compensation on cross-objections. Accordingly the cross-objections also having no merits and dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.