T. CH. SURYA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE insurer, the new India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its divisional Manager, Ongole, preferred all these appeals against the common order passed by the learned single Judge of this court.

( 2 ) ALL these claims arise out of a single accident. Some of the claimants are the injured and some are the legal representatives of the deceased who died a premature death in the accident that occurred on 18. 2. 1995. The respondent No. 1 herein is the owner of the vehicle, viz. , the tractor attached with a trailer bearing Nos. AP27-T-4173 and AP-27-T-4174 respectively that was involved in the accident.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are thus: about 23 persons were sitting in the trailer of the tractor at the relevant time and they were being taken to attend to the coolie work in the agricultural fields of the respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor the unfortunate accident occurred when the tractor was proceeding on the left bank of Nagarjuna sagar canal. Some, out of the 23 coolies, died instantaneously and some sustained injuries in that accident. All the claims have been preferred under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act ) under no fault liability. The respondent no. 1 resisted the claims pleading, inter alia, in his counter that he was also sitting in the trailer along with the coolies, and the connecting link between the tractor and the trailer had given way and the trailer had been detached and had fallen into the canal. The appellant insurer resisted the claims on the premise that all the persons who were sitting in the trailer were fare paying passengers and the respondent no. 1 owner used the vehicle in contravention of the condition embodied in the policy for the purpose other than agricultural and forestry purposes and the driver who was said to have driven the tractor at the relevant time did not possess a valid driving licence.

( 4 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after conducting enquiry passed individual awards holding that the owner and insurer were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal directed that the amounts already paid by the owner shall be deducted. The learned single Judge of this court dismissed all the appeals filed by the insurer. The concurrent findings of the Tribunal as well as of the learned single Judge of this court are that the vehicle at the relevant time was used for agricultural and forestry purposes and the unfortunate persons who were found sitting in the trailer attached to the ill-fated tractor were coolies being transported to the place of work for agricultural purposes and the driver who was actually driving the vehicle in question did not possess a valid driving licence.

( 5 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for the insurer has sought to contend before us that in the wake of the concurrent finding that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake licence, obviously, the owner has committed breach of the condition embodied in the policy and that absolves the insurer from any liability. He has sought to further contend that the liability of the insurer arises under Chapter XI of the Act for fault liability and the insurer has no liability under Chapter X of the Act for no fault liability. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants has tried to support the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge of this court.

( 6 ) TO appreciate the respective contentions, it is expedient in the first instance to consider the relevant provisions of the act dealing with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Chapter XI of the Act is the relevant Chapter. Sections 145, 146, 147 and 149 are the relevant sections in this Chapter. While section 145 deals with the definitions in the Chapter, section 146 covers the necessity for insurance against third party risk, section 147 enumerates the requirements of policies and the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document