1. The two injured claimants, by name Korva Manjula and Pitla Sudershan, respectively maintained the two claim petitions in O.P.Nos.253/1998 and 288/1998 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in each, for the injuries allegedly sustained by them while travelling in the tractor and trolley bearing Nos.AP-25-D-6768 and ADB 1248, from the vehicle turned turtle while in the journey on the date of accident dated 20.03.1998 at about 05.00 PM within the limits of PS Makloor, due to rash and negligent driving and from the report, police registered crime No.15/1998 covered by Ex.A.1 respectively and after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the said vehicle i.e., the trolley propelled to the tractor, that belong to 2 different owners, claim petitions R.1 and R.3 by name Chitti Laxmi Narsaiah and Neelam Bhasker, both insured respectively with Oriental Insurance Company Limited and New India Assurance Company Limited, claim petitions R.2 and R.4.

2. The Tribunal after contest, particularly by both the insurers, held by the award dated 23.07.2002 respectively in both the claim petitions, awarded compensation respectively of Rs.1,01,500/- and Rs.1,87,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum with joint liability on owner and insurer of the tractor i.e., claim petitions respondent Nos.1 and 2 only by exonerating the insurer and owner of the trolley.

3. It is impugning the same, the 2nd respondent i.e., insurer of the tractor by name Oriental Insurance Company Limited maintained the two present appeals supra. The claimant respectively in each of the two claim petitions covered by the two appeals maintained cross objections.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the insurer vis-a-vis learned counsel for the claimant respectively and at their request to take both the matters for common disposal with the respective cross objections taken up together for disposal and perused the material on record.

5. The finding of the Tribunal respectively in both the claim petitions in fixing the liability against R.1, owner of the tractor and its insurer R.2 is that the evidence on record shows it is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor to which the trolley was propelled, proving from the Ex.A.1-FIR and A.2-charge sheet vis-a-vis the evidence of the injured respectively and with reference to Ex.A3-injury certificate respectively. RW.1 is the employee of 2nd respondent insurer of the tractor and no witness even was examined on behalf of the R.4 insurer, but for both the policies marked by consent as Ex.A6 and A7 respectively. The Tribunal in its finding having held the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor to which the trolley is propelled and in which trolley the injured persons were sitting and travelling, could assign no reason to exonerate the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in fixing the liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the grounds of appeal by the tractor insurer, it is the contention that when injured persons were sitting and travelling in the trolley propelled to the tractor that belongs to R.3 insured with R.4, the insurer and owner of tractor alone cannot be made liable, but for if at all of the owner and insurer of the trolley also with joint liability. It is also the contention that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability on insurer ignoring the factum of the injured persons are unauthorized and gratuitous passengers in the goods trolley and not entitled to any compensation against the insurers to indemnify the respective owners but for against the owners including under Section 147 of the Act.

6. The contentions in the cross objections filed by the respective two claimants are in impugning the quantum of compensation as utterly low, while saying otherwise the award fixing liability of insurer to indemnify holds good for any insurer to pay and share from other as joint tort features.

7. Bef