THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 261 of 2008 DATE: 22-03-2011 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another .. Appellants And Gaddala Kalamma and 5 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 261 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 09.10.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.890 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal, the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The respondents 2 and 3 in the above O.P. are the appellants herein. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 that there is a policy violation by the owner of the offending vehicle as the offending vehicle was used other than the agricultural purpose and the finding of the lower Court is not sustainable. Now the point for consideration is whether there is any violation of policy conditions as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the order and decree of the lower Court is sustainable? As seen from the impugned order, P.W.2 stated that on the date of incident four or five persons went to attend labour work on the crime tractor. Though, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, pleaded in the lower Court that there is violation of policy, none were examined on behalf of the insurance company to rebut the evidence of P.W.2. It is the contention of the claimants from the beginning that the deceased was travelling on the offending tractor as a labourer and, therefore, the insurance company shall indemnify the compensation payable by the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal below categorically observed that the insurance company did not adduce any evidence that the tractor has hired to third parties other than agricultural purpose. In this case, the pleadings and evidence of P.W.2 consistently show that the 1st respondent engaged the deceased and other persons to load and unload hay in the tractor. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A-1 and A-4, it is established that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor, which was insured with the respondent No.2 under Ex.B-1 policy. On that, there is no violation of the policy conditions and, therefore, the finding of the lower Court granting award against the respondents 1 to 3 is sustainable. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 22-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 261 of 2008 DATE: 22-03-2011 MR