B. Chandra Kumar, J.

1. The appeal and cross objections arise out of the award dated 07-01-2005 passed O.P. No. 434 of 2001 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-CUM-I-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The Insurance Company is challenging the said award in M.A.C.M.A. No. 492 of 2005. The claimants in the cross-objections are seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. The 1st claimant is the father, the 2nd claimant is the mother and the 3rd claimant is the unmarried sister of the deceased Nallaganthula Srinu.

4. On 23-01-2000 at about 8 a.m., the deceased was ploughing the land of one Yadagiri Reddy at Garlakuntapalem of Nidmanoor with the Tractor bearing No. AP-26-T-462. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent-Sri V. Srinivasa Reddy was the owner of the Tractor and the said Tractor was insured with the 2nd respondent Insurance Company. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was driving the Tractor at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred when the said Tractor was used for ploughing the land of Yadagiri Reddy. It is the contention of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month and supporting them.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contested the matter on various grounds. One of the grounds taken by the Insurance Company is that since the deceased himself was driving the Tractor and the accident occurred due to the own negligence of the deceased, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The second contention of the Insurance Company is that since the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and since the Tractor was hired to one Yadagiri Reddy, if need not pay compensation to the claimants.

7. Before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1 and eye witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Senior Assistant working in the office of the United India Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and copy of the policy was marked as Ex. B-1.

8. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself.

9. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

10. As far as the issue of accident occurring due to the own negligence of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of this Court in Shahazadi Bee and Others Vs. The Managing Director, APSRTC and Another, (2004) ACJ 1773 came to the conclusion that since the claim was made u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the claimants need not plead and prove the negligence of any other person and it is sufficient if it is proved that the vehicle is involved in the accident. With regard to the allegation of hiring the vehicle to one Yadagiri Reddy, the Tribunal concluded that since the vehicle was used only for agriculture purpose for ploughing the land, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The Tribunal has also referred to the conditions of the policy and concluded that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

11. The main contention of Smt. P. Lakshmi, learned counsel for the claimants is that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified. The Tribunal has given valid reasons for its findings. As seen from the conditions of the policy, it is clear that the Tractor can be used for agriculture purpose and in the present case, the Tractor was used for agriculture purpose and, therefore, there is no violation of the term