THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.Nos.696 and 697 of 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since similar questions arise for consideration in these two appeals, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. The appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, filed these appeals against separate orders, dated 25-11-2005, passed in O.P.Nos.288 of 2002 and 86 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur (for short “the Tribunal), contending that in both the appeals the insurance company is also liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the 1st respondent-claimant, as the accident was occurred when the Tractor and Trailor bearing No.AP-02-E-8138 was used for agricultural purpose. It is further stated that the said vehicle was engaged for transporting stones and the labourers were engaged for loading and unloading of stones and, therefore, as the accident was occurred during the course of agricultural operations, the insurance company is also liable to pay compensation. I have perused the material papers. It is not in dispute that the claimants were engaged by the appellant for the purpose of loading and unloading of stones into the Tractor and the appellant is a resident of Konakondla Village, Vjarakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. A reading of Ex.A-1-FIR and Ex.A-3-charge-sheet goes to show that both the claimants were engaged as labourers by the appellant for transporting stones from Konakondla Village to Kasapuram for constructing a house belonging to the appellant. The appellant has not adduced any evidence stating that he got agricultural fields at Kasapuram and that he is constructing a house in the agricultural field but in fact he is a native of Konakondla village and he also remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. A perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the claimants and the report given to the police goes to show that on the date of accident the stones were being transported from Konakondla village to Kasapuram. If that be so, the appellant has not even made any attempt to adduce any additional evidence to establish that when the Tractor was involved in the accident, it was being used for agricultural operations. The Court below, basing on the oral and documentary evidence, held that according to the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A-1-FIR, the appellant had engaged claimants for loading and unloading of stones for constructing a house. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claimants were engaged for agricultural operations and as the Tractor was not used for agricultural purpose, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that absolutely the appellant had failed to adduce any evidence before the Tribunal and even before this court to establish that the claimants were engaged for agricultural operations. Therefore, the appeals are devoid of merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 01-07-2010 Prv