( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the New India assurance Company Limited, Karimnagar against the order and decree in O. P. 331 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Karimnagar.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the O. P. was filed by the first respondent-herein/ claimant claiming a compensation of rs. 1,00,000/- due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 25-12-1993, while he was travelling in a trailer No. APO 4860 which belongs to the 2nd respondent and which was insured with the 3rd respondent/appellant herein. The said trailer was attached to a tractor bearing No. ABP 8892. While the tractor was going towards Bommanapalli sivaru with morum load, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the trailer which is attached to the tractor severed and the 1st respondent/ driver of the tractor lost his control and the hook link between the tractor and trailer got detached and the tractor as well as the trailer turned turtle and the claimant fell down from the trailer and sustained grievous injuries on the upper portion of his both thighs. Aggrieved by the said accident, the claimant filed the O. P.

( 3 ) BEFORE the Tribunal the driver-cum- owner of the tractor ABP 8892 and the owner of the trailer APO 4860 filed common counter-affidavit contending that there was no rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, and the trailer turned turtle as the hook between the tractor and trailer got detached.

( 4 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company, being the 3rd respondent in the O. P. , filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations of the claimant in the O. P. , contending that the owners of the tractor and trailer are different and the claimant is an unauthorised passenger travelling in the trailer and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 4-A. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. ABP 8892 by its driver? (2) Whether the vehicle in question got valid insurance with the third respondent? (3) Whether the petitioner (s) are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? (4) To what relief?

( 5 ) CONSIDERING the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident has taken place because of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent/ driver of the tractor. While fixing liability against the appellant as well as respondents 1 and 2 in the O. P. , the learned Judge has taken a view that even though the tractor is not insured with the present appellant/ insurance Company the trailer is insured with the appellant/insurance Company on the date of accident and held that in view of the insurance policy both the owners, i. e. , the driver-cum-owner of the tractor and the owner of the trailer as well as the Insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, basing on the evidence of P. W. 4 and Ex. P-52, and awarded a compensation of Rs. 71,000. 00.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company.

( 7 ) IT is the contention of the Counsel for appellant/insurance Company that the accident is caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor which was not insured with the present appellant/insurance Company. So the insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that as per the insurance policy even though the trailer is insured with the present appellant the tractor was not insured with the appellant and so the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. J. Kotiratnamma.

( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondents, it is contended by the Counsel that it is the admitted case of the present appellant that