HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3642 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited-second respondent in the O.P. preferred this appeal questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.1271 of 1999 vide orders dated 03-06-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Warangal. 3. In this appeal, 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 involved in the accident. 4. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are; while the claimant was returning from Grain Market, Warangal to his village 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 the claimant 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, the claimant filed this O.P. 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 claimant 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 claimant, who travelled in that vehicle, is unauthroised passenger, as such, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation to him. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 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. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the claimant 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 this appeal. 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 claimant is unauthorized passenger, 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 claimant, and, if so, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate ? 13. A perusal of Ex.B-1 insurance policy filed in connected O.P. with regard to the same accident, 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 claimant as at the time of accident he was unauthorized passenger in that vehicle as he was transporting cotton to the market as revealed from the evidence of the claimant himself. 14. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is 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 claimant. However, it is ordered that as 50% of the compensation was already deposited, the same need not be recovered from the claimant even if the same is lying in the Court not being withdrawn by the claimant and the insurance company need not deposit the balance amount. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited into the Court by the insurance company if not already done. 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 claimant is also at liberty to recover the remaining compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 24, 2010. Rns