C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 29.06.2006 passed in O.P. No. 362 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Mahaboobnagar, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"), wherein and whereunder the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation by directing the insurance company to pay the said amount with interest from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization at first instance and later recover the same from the first respondent.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

"The claimants, who are the parents of one V. Chennaiah, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the death of one V. Chennaiah in a motor accident that took place on 28.04.2001. It is stated that on the fateful day the deceased was engaged as a labourer in a Tractor-Trailer bearing No. AP.22.E.2209 and 2210 for transporting earth from Bhaktimalla village water tank to the fields of Ranga Reddy of the same village. The averments in the petition would disclose that the deceased was traveling in the tractor-trailer to load the earth. On the way the deceased got down from the tractor to drink water and while boarding the tractor/trailer, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the deceased fell down and the tractor ran over him resulting in instantaneous death. In respect of the above incident, a case in Crime No. 26 of 2001 of Kosgi Police Station came to be registered against the driver of the Tractor-Trailer for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and earning Rs. 5,000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour work and contributing the same to his family. It is stated that due to sudden death, the petitioners lost love and affection and future support of their son. Hence, claim-petition came to be filed."

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte, while the second respondent filed their counter denying the allegations made in the petition with regard to the date and time of the incident and also with regard to the age and income of the deceased. It is specifically stated that the said vehicle was meant for agriculture purpose, but the first respondent converted it into commercial purpose, thereby violating the terms and conditions of the policy, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Since the deceased was under the control of first respondent and was traveling as un-authorised passenger, it is stated that the first respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the accident occurred on 28.04.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. within the limits of Bhaktimala village, due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trally bearing No. AP-22-E-2209/2210 by its driver, and whether it resulted to the death of Chennaiah?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount, and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

6. In support of the claim, the claimants examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. A1 to A6. The second respondent examined R.W. 1 and marked Exs. B1 to B4.

7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer and as such the claimants were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation to be paid initially by the insurance company and later recover it from the first respondent. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the insurer of the vehicle.

8. Smt. I Mammu Vani, the learned counsel f