C. Praveen Kumar, J.

1. MACMA No. 127 of 2007 was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded while MACMA No. 1303 of 2008 was filed by United India Insurance Company Limited, questioning the award dated 14.9.2006 passed in OP No. 102 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad. Since these two appeals are directed against the order dated 14.9.2006 they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

"The claimants, who are the wife and parents of the deceased Pundu Mallesh filed a petition under Section 166(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the death of Pundu Mallesh in a road accident that took place on 17.9.2002. It is stated that on that day at about 1.30 p.m., the deceased alongwith others was travelling in a Tractor bearing No. AP 25 H 4496 from the fields to Damara Village. When the said tractor reached Damara Cheruvu Katta, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same, as a result of which the tractor fell into the tank and the deceased died on the spot. It is stated that prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month by doing agriculture. On account of death of the deceased, the first petitioner lost her husband at her prime age and petitioners 2 and 3 lost their son. Since the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent being insurer of the vehicle, both of them are made jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

The first respondent, owner of the tractor remained ex parte, while the second respondent filed written statement denying the averments in the petition including the involvement of the tractor in the said accident. It also disputed the manner in which the accident took place, the age, income and avocation of the deceased. It was further contended that the seating capacity of the tractor is only one and as there is no provision in the policy to cover the risk of labourers or cleaner travelling in the tractor, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. It was further contended that the driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. It is also specifically contended that since the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation."

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 25 H 4496 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?"

5. In support of their claim, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and an eye-witness to the incident as PW2 and got marked Exs. Al to A6 in support of their plea. The respondents got examined RW1 and also got marked Ex. B1 a copy of the insurance policy.

6. After analyzing the material available on record, the Tribunal found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 4,28,000/- as compensation to be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally. Challenging the same these appeals are filed.

7. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company strenuously contends that the seating capacity of the tractor is only one and as such covering the risk of others travelling in the tractor as coolies or labourers would not arise. It was further contended that the tractor was used other than the purpose for which it was insured and hence the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

8. Relying upon the judgment of the apex Court in Kishan