DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the award dated 21. 7. 2000 in M. V. O. P. No. 200 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-II additional District Judge, guntur. The insurance company filed this appeal.

( 2 ) ON 26. 11. 1996 deceased S. Yesupadam was bringing napa slabs to his village suddapalli in a tractor-trailer AP 7-V 2344 and ADM 5461 belonging to the respondent no. 1. He was sitting on the load of napa slabs. On the way the tractor met with an accident, deceased fell down from the tractor, sustained grievous injuries, he was taken to a hospital and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 4. 2. 1997. His wife, children and mother filed claim application seeking a total compensation of Rs. 5,50,000. The owner of the tractor-trailer insured the vehicles with appellant insurance company. According to the claimants the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The owner of the vehicle filed a counter denying all the averments in the claim application. He also pleaded that the deceased never engaged his vehicle to carry napa slabs. The insurance company filed a counter initially taking the plea that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger travelling in the tractor and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, in case of violation of its terms and conditions by the owner, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Later the insurance company filed an additional written statement stating that the policy issued covers the vehicles with a condition to use the said vehicle for agricultural purpose only and the policy does not cover use of the vehicle for hire or reward. It also pleaded that as the deceased hired the vehicle for bringing napa slabs for his newly constructed house, the owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The owner of the vehicles did not give evidence. He did not adduce evidence on his behalf. The insurance company examined its Administrative officer as RW 1. The claimants examined three witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 on their behalf. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. Regarding the liability of the insurance company, the Tribunal held that as there is no evidence adduced by the respondents to show that any amount was paid by the deceased towards hire charges, it cannot be said that the tractor was hired and even otherwise, as the vehicle was covered by the insurance policy, insurance company is liable to meet the claim of the petitioners. Accordingly the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,39,000 payable jointly and severally by the owner as well as the insurance company. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company preferred the present appeal.

( 3 ) EXH. B-1 is true copy of the insurance policy. The policy was in force on the date of accident. It is not in dispute. There is a limitation in user stipulated in the insurance policy. The said limitation reads as follows:"use for agricultural purpose only. The policy does not cover use for (a) hire or reward, (b) organised races or speed testing. "on the basis of the above terms of the insurance policy, it is contended by the insurance company that at the time of accident, the tractor was not used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation or indemnify the owner. Regarding its liability, it is further contended that as the vehicle was under hire at the time of the accident, it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants or to indemnify the owner.

( 4 ) THE owner did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. In view of the decision of Apex Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), insurance compa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document