THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2143, 2282 & 2283 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2949 & 3641 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: All these appeals arise out of a common accident occurred on 04.12.2000. Several claims were made for compensation on the ground that on 04.12.2000 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased persons and injured were traveling in the tractor bearing No.AP-23-A-6040 with trailer bearing No.AP- 23-T-8835 to go to Ankushapuram and when reached Katkuru village limits the driver of the tractor-trailer drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tractor-trailer turned turtle. The tractor was insured with the appellant herein whereas the trailer is said to have been insured with the 4th respondent in the petitions. The details of the claims in the above appeals are as follows: MACMA No. O.P. No. On the file of the Name of the deceased Amount of compen- sation claimed/ granted (Rs.) Date of order 2143 of 2005 2120 of 2001 XII Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad Bharathamma 2,00,000/ 50,000 30.12.2004 2282 of 2005 1945 of 2001 XII Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad Yama Parvathi 2,00,000/ 50,000 27.01.2005 2283 of 2005 1633 of 2001 XII Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad Kavitha 1,00,000/ 50,000 09.12.2004 2949 of 2011 1433 of 2001 III Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad Kistamma @ Krishnaveni 3,50,000/ 2,25,000 27.12.2004 3641 of 2011 1242 of 2001 III Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad N.Lachavva 1,50,000/ 60,000 27.12.2004 The appellant in all the appeals contended that there is no rashness or negligence and there is violation of the conditions of the policy and the tractor or trailer are not meant for carrying the passengers when it was meant only for agricultural purposes and, therefore, there is no liability. The earning capacity of the deceased persons and the nature of the injuries received by them were also disputed. After considering the material evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted the compensation as shown in the above table against the appellant herein, whereas it exonerated the liability of the 4th respondent with whom the trailer was insured. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respective appeals are filed (as shown in the above table). Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant herein is liable to pay the compensation? POINT: Evidently, there is no dispute about the fact that the tractor bearing No.AP- 23-A-6040, which was insured with the appellant herein, was involved in the accident and the trailer bearing No.AP-23-T-8835 was attached to the said tractor. It is also not in dispute that the trailer was carrying the persons facilitating a travel to Ankushapuram. Therefore, it is quite clear that the trailer, which was meant for only agricultural purposes, has been used and thereby there is a violation of the conditions of the policy. Furthermore, from the evidence available on record, it is quite clear that the incident happened due to the fault of the driver of the tractor. Though the M.V.I. report shows that due to mechanical defect the tractor turned turtle, still it is a matter of duty of care and negligence and, therefore, the driver of the tractor cannot avoid the liability. However, the tractor also shall not be used for any purpose other than agricultural purposes. There is no coverage of risk when the tractor was used for carrying the passengers in a trailer and, therefore, it is a clear case of violation of the conditions of the policy. The direction of the lower Tribunal fastening the liability to pay the amount when unauthorised passengers are being carried in the trailer and when the tractor was put to use for which the risk was not covered, does not arise and the appellant cannot be liable to pay the said amount. The question of treating the gratuitous and unauthorised passengers as third parties in the same vehicle where there is a violation of the conditions of the policy does not arise. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the amount. However, in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the appellant was directed to deposit half of the award amount and it was also permitted to be withdrawn. Under the above circumstances, the appellant is permitted to proceed for recovery of the said amount, which was pending withdrawn by the claimants and if not the appellant will be entitled for withdrawal of the same from the lower Tribunal. The claimants will be entitled to proceed for recovery of the award amount against the owner of the vehicle, if no amount was withdrawn and if half of the amount was withdrawn for the balance amount they can proceed against the owner of the vehicle. With the above modification, all the appeals are, accordingly, allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 19-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. Nos.2143, 2282 & 2283 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2949 & 3641 of 2011 DATE: 19-12-2011 MR