1. Both the appeal and cross objections are directed against the same award in O.P.No.694 of 2005, dated 05-03-2007 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judge-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Since both the appeal and the cross objections arise out of the same award, they are being heard together and disposed of by this judgment.

3. While the appellant-Insurance Company filed the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.1350 of 2007 questioning the award fastening liability on it jointly and severally along with the 4th respondent herein (owner of the vehicle) in a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- granted in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 herein (claimants), the claimants have filed the cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Claimant No.1 is the wife of one K. Bikshapathi (deceased in the accident) and claimants 2 and 3 are his minor children. The deceased was an agriculturist. He engaged a tractor bearing Regn. No.AP-24V-3625 for harvesting paddy. On 11-11-2004 during harvesting, the driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor hit the deceased as a result of which, he came under the wheels and sustained grievous injuries to the stomach and other vital parts of the body. He died on the way to the hospital. The claimants, therefore, filed O.P. and sought for the compensation for a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs.

5. The 4th respondent (owner) remained ex parte. The Insurance Company obtained permission in I.A.No.14 of 2006, dated 10-01-2007 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') and contested the matter on merits.

6. The Court framed the relevant issues viz., whether the death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom.

7. The 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined one P.Rama Narsaiah as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The Insurance Company marked Ex.B-1, Policy, but did not examine any witness on its behalf. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence, awarded Rs.4,08,000/- towards pecuniary loss, Rs.15,000/- in favour of claimant No.1 towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.3,000/-towards funeral expenses and transport charges, in all, a sum of Rs.4,41,000/-was granted. This is the award under challenge by both the parties in this appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would submit that on the date of accident, the tractor was on lease with the deceased. The vehicle was in his possession as lease-holder, as such the deceased should be considered as owner of the vehicle within the meaning of sub-Section (30) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act'). According to the learned counsel, Ex.B-1, Insurance Policy, did not cover the risk of owner and as such the Insurance Company is not liable. The learned counsel would further submit that the amount awarded is excessive and liable to be scaled down.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the tractor was engaged on hire for agricultural operation to harvest paddy from the fields of the deceased. There was no agreement of lease nor the deceased was in possession and control of the vehicle and as such, he could not be considered as owner of the vehicle. He would further contend that the compensation awarded is inadequate and the claimants are entitled to enhancement.

11. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, the points which arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the deceased can be considered as the owner within the meaning of sub section (30) of Section 2 of the Act?

2. Whether the Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

12. Point Nos.1 and 2: