HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.3010, 3222 & 3223 OF 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since all these appeals arise out of the same accident and appellant in all the matters is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited preferred these appeals questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. Nos.1272, 1269 and 1270 of 1999 respectively vide separate orders dated 03-06-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Warangal. 3. In all the appeals, appellant is insurance company, respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2 is owner of the tractor-trailer bearing Nos.AP36 – D – 9184 and 9185 that involved in the accident. 4. The facts that are necessary for disposal of all these appeals are that while the claimants were returning from Grain Market, Warangal to their villages along with others in the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP36 – D – 9184 and 9185 after dumping load of cotton bags, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer, it turned turtle and on account of that all the claimants sustained injuries. A case in crime No.1 of 1999 was registered by the Geesugonda Police Station for the offences under Sections 337 & 338 IPC and investigated into. Hence, claimants filed separate O.Ps. claiming compensation. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the tractor-trailer, remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants and contending that the offending vehicle tractor-trailer is meant only for agricultural purposes but it was used for transporting cotton, which is a commercial activity, at the time of accident and the same is in violation of the terms of the policy and therefore the claimants, who travelled in that vehicle, are unauthroised passengers, as such, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to them. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal in all the O.Ps.: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP36 D 9184 Trailor No.9185 by it’s driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. In O.P. No.1272 of 1999, claimant therein got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked. 8. In O.P. No.1269 of 1999, claimant therein got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, no evidence was adduced. 9. In O.P. No.1270 of 1999, claimant therein got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked. 10. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.38,000/- to the claimant in O.P. No.1272 of 1999, Rs.30,000/- to the claimant in O.P. No.1269 of 1999 and Rs.40,000/- to the claimant in O.P. No.1270 of 1999 against both the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, questioning its liability and quantum of compensation, insurance company preferred these appeals. 11. Now the main contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company (appellant) is that the tractor-trailer was supposed to be used for agricultural purposes only and limitation clause of the insurance policy is that the vehicle should not be used for hire or reward and in violation of the same, owner of the vehicle hired it for transporting cotton, as such, the claimants are unauthorized passengers, and therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. 12. In view of the contention of the appellant, the primary question that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, and, if so, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate ? 13. A perusal of Ex.B-1 insurance policy shows that vehicle shall not be used for hire, reward, organized racing and speed testing. In view of this condition, it has to be held that insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants as at the time of accident they were unauthorized passengers in that vehicle as they were transporting cotton to the market as revealed from the evidence of the claimants themselves. 14. However, the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants are not substantial and only 50% out of the total compensation is deposited into the Court as of now. Hence, I hold that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. However, it is ordered that as 50% of the compensation was already deposited, the same need not be recovered from the claimants even if the same is lying in the Court not being withdrawn by the claimants and the insurance company need not deposit the balance amount. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited into the Court by the insurance company. The insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation deposited by it into the Court from the owner of the tractor-trailer and the claimants are also at liberty to recover the remaining compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 15. With the above directions, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 16, 2010. PV