( 1 ) THE appeal is filed for challenging the order passed in the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mahabubnagar in O. P. No. 140 of 1990.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the mother while respondent No. 2 is the mother- in-law and respondent No. 3 is the daughter of one M. Parvathamma. The said parvathamma is hereinafter referred to as the deceased . Respondent No. 4 is the owner of the tractor bearing No. AAM 3236. The said tractor was admittedly insured with the appellant. On 2-1-1990 in the afternoon the deceased, who was a labourer employed by respondent No. 4 for loading and unloading sand carried in the Trolley of the Tractor, was travelling in the said tractor. When she was so travelling the driver of the Tractor due to rash and negligent driving caused the throwing out of the trolley from the Tractor resulting in fall of deceased. As a result of the said fall, the deceased received injuries and succumbed to them subsequently. The deceased was about 25 years of age and was working as a labourer earning daily wages. Due to her death, claim was made by respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 challenged the claim. He denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by the driver. However, he did not disown the ownership of the Tractor and trolley, nor did he disown relationship of employer and employee between him and the deceased. It was however urged that the claim was excessive and exhorbitant. Lastly it was said that whatever the liability, it was of Insurance Company (appellant) and not of respondent No. 4.

( 4 ) THE appellant by its separate counter contended that there was no rashness on the part of the Tractor-driver. It was denied that the deceased was earning any thing. The most important plea raised was that the liability of the appellant was limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and was not unlimited. A plea was taken that the deceased was a passenger and not a labourer and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable.

( 5 ) THE evidence adduced before the Tribunal persuaded the Tribunal to hold in favour of the claimants. The claim was for a total amount of rs. 1,00,000/ -. The same was decreed and apportionment of the amount was made between petitioner No. l and 2 as Rs. 25,000. 00 each and for petitioner no. 3 as Rs. 50,000. 00. The liability of the Insurance Company was held to be in its entirety though jointly. Interest of 12% p. a. was granted.

( 6 ) NO appeal was preferred by the owner though the decree was joint and several against owner as well as the appellant. As far as the owner is concerned, the decree has become final. The owner has not appeared in this appeal also though served.

( 7 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the liability of the Insurance Company cannot exceed the liability which arises under the insurance cover issued by it to the owner. Though it was tried to be urged that the victim was not a labourer and was a mere gratuitous passenger, the said plea has not been canvassed with any seriousness. The evidence on that point is very clear and has remained unrebutted. The quantum of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants is also not disputable by the Insurance Company. The only plea which the Insurance Company can take and, has in fact been advanced now, is the extent of liability.

( 8 ) THE issue has been squarely covered by various judgments of various courts including observations made by this Court. In particular in Oriental insurance Company Limited vs. Guru Charan Saren this point came specifically for decision. There also claim was by a workman for a injury sustained by him in course of employment when a tractor in which he was an employee met with an accident. It was held by the Court that the injured being a workman, he was entitled to claim as against the Insurance Company amount which was payable under the Workmen s Compensation Act and not more. The ratio