C.M.A. Nos.993, 1011 and 2542 of 2004 are filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited and C.M.A. Nos.3510, 3513 and 3768 of 2004 are filed by the petitioners seeking enhancement of compensation. All these appeals arise out of the common award dated 31.03.2013, passed in O.P. Nos.592, 593 and 594 of 2002, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. Since the issues that arise for consideration in all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are common, they are taken up for disposal by way of this common judgment.

3. The Insurance Company challenges the award passed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is contrary to the terms of the Insurance Policy on the crime vehicle and the Insurance Company has limited liability and the balance amount has to be borne by the owner of the vehicle. Whereas, the petitioners filed the appeals claiming enhancement of compensation not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

5. On 31.03.2002 three labourers, while travelling on the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP15 K 4192 and 4193, respectively, to go to Warangal Grain Market via Parkal, at about 06.00 p.m. the tractor met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. As a result of which, the tractor turned turtle; the deceased fell down from the trailer and the load of chilli bags carrying in the trailer fell on them, as a result of which they received grievous injuries and died on the spot. Crime No.34 of 2002 was registered against the driver of the tractor and trailer under Section 304-A I.P.C. Since no compensation was paid to them, by the owner of the vehicle, dependents of the deceased, claiming compensation, instituted O.P. Nos.592, 593 and 594 of 2002 respectively. In all the above O.P.s owner of the crime vehicle and United India Insurance Company Limited, being the insurer, were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2.

6. Petitioners claimed that the deceased were engaged as farm labourers by the owner of the tractor and trailer and on the fateful day, while they were carrying on trailer with a load of chilly bags to Warangal Grain Market, the accident occurred resulting in their death. Owner of the vehicle admitted that the deceased were working as labourers but denied their allegation that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. The Insurance Company, second respondent denied the allegations and claims set up by the petitioners by taking usual defences which are taken by the Insurance Company in opposing the claim such as the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and there is violation of policy conditions etc.,

7. Learned Tribunal framed the following three issues for consideration :

1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by its driver or due to the circumstances beyond his control resulting in the death of the deceased?

2. What was the age and income of the deceased by the date of their death? Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

8.In order to substantiate their case, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked in O.P. No.592 of 2002, PW.2 was examined and Exs.A-6 and A-7 were marked in O.P. No.593 of 2002 and PW.3 was examined and Exs.A-8 and A-9 were marked in O.P. No.594 of 2002. PW.4 was examined as eyewitness to the incident. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent-Insurance Company. However, the insurance policy is not disputed.

9. Learned Tribunal recorded the finding on the first issue that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of t