( 1 ) AN important question of law as to the interpretation of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as far as Insurance Company is concerned, arises in this batch of appeals.

( 2 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal arising out of a common accident. Hence, they are disposed of by a common judgment.

( 3 ) AN unfortunate accident took place on 18-2-1995 when the Tractor-Trailer bearing No. AP-27/t 4173 and AP-27/t 4174 owned by the 1st respondent was proceeding towards the agricultural fields. While so, the connecting hook from the Tracter was delinked, with the result, the trailer fell down in N. S. P. Canal. The coolies in the Trailer were drowned, out of them some died and some of them received injuries. The Tractor - Trailer was insured with the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. The Legal Representatives of the deceased occupants in the trailer laid a claim before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act ) claiming compensation against the owner and the Insurance company under no fault liability .

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent-owner denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. Even otherwise, he submitted that the 2nd respondent-Insurance company was liable as the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. It was also stated that on humanitarian grounds he also paid certain sums and executed an agreement with the legal representatives of the deceased.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent-Insurance Company opposed the claim on the ground that the occupants in the trailer were fare paying passengers and therefore it was in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Secondly, it was stated the driver was not having valid licence. The policy specifically contained that the vehicle has to be driven by the person holding valid driving licence.

( 6 ) THE learned Tribunal held that the licence possessed by the driver was not genuine, but, however, held that under no fault liability under section 140 of the Act, the Insurance Company was liable for payment of the compensation. The Tribunal found that vehicle was used for agricultural and forestry purposes. In the said processes, the coolies were being transported to the place of work for agricultural purposes and, therefore, the Tribunal directed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company to pay the amount under no fault liability duly deducting the amounts paid by the 1st respondent- owner. All the petitions under Section 140 of the Act were allowed by the awards dated 8th September, 1997. The present Appeals arose out of the said awards.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. M. Srinivas Rao submits that when once the Tribunal held that the vehicle was being driven by a person not possessing valid driving licence, it amounts to statutory violation under the Motor Vehicles Act and also the terms of the Insurance policy, and therefore, any liability arising out of the said accident the Insurance company cannot be made liable. He also submits that the vehicle cannot carry the passengers even as coolies for purpose of agricultural operations which was not permissible under the terms of the policy. When the terms of policy are violated the liability arising under Section 140 of the Act cannot be invoked against the Insurance Company.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the other respondent-owner had entrusted the Tractor-Trailer to the driver who was possessing valid driving licence. It is also his case that the said driver was previously working in A. P. S. R. T. C. and subsequently he was removed from service, but the facts of fake certificate possessed by the said driver was revealed only during the proceedings before the Tribunal and it is not incumbent on the part