Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

The insured/owner of the offending construction equipment vehicle (for short, 'crane'), aggrieved by the finding fastening liability to pay compensation and exonerating the insurer from paying compensation, by common judgment and award date 3-7-2012 in MVC Nos. 8907, 8908 and 8207 of 2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (for short, 'MACT') has presented these appeals.

2. Facts not in dispute are: the offending 'crane' registered as a motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'MV Act') read with Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, 'Rules') with certificate of registration 'CH 04 L 7891' driven in a rash and negligent manner on 25-10-2010 at about 6.30 p.m. on Kanakapura Main Road near Yadamadu Village dashed against a Maruthi Van bearing certificate of registration No. KA 41 M 5624, due to which two occupants of the Maruthi Van suffered injuries, while another succumbed to grievous injuries, causing damages to the Maruthi Van; injured filed claim petitions invoking Section 166 of the MV Act, registered as MVC Nos. 8907 and 8908 of 2010. while legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition registered as MVC No. 8207 of 2010 before the MACT; the owner/insured of tire offending 'crane' was arraigned as respondent 2, while the insurer as respondent 1, when served with notice, entered appearance, resisted the claim by filing statement of objections; insurer-respondent 1 advanced the plea that it was not liable to pay compensation since the vehicle was not insured under the MV Act, while the vehicle was insured as 'plant and machinery', not covering third party claims arising out of the motor vehicle accident in a public road; that the insured having understood the terms and conditions of Contractor's Plant and Machinery' floater policy (for short, 'CPM policy') made payment towards premium for damages of the vehicle as also the premium towards third party liability, who suffered injuries at the site of construction.

3. Having regard to pleadings of parties, the Tribunal framed issues in each of the claim petitions, clubbed them together, recorded common evidence whence, claimants were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 3, while the doctor as P.W. 4 and marked 46 documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 46 and for respondents the officer of the insurer was examined as R.W. 1 and marked a copy of the policy' of insurance as Ex. R. 1. The MACT returned finding on issue 1 in the affirmative attributing actionable negligence to the driver of offending 'crane'; partly in affirmative on issue 2 entitling the claimants to compensation; and answered issue 3 fastening liability to pay compensation on the insured, by the judgment and award impugned.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings, the evidence both oral and documentary and examined the judgment and award.

The question for decision making is :

"Whether in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the MACT was justified in fastening the liability on the insured/owner to pay the compensation while exonerating the insurer?"

5. The plea of the appellant as aired by its learned Counsel is that the 'crane' is attached to the motor vehicle which confirms to the definition of 'Heavy goods vehicle' under Section 2(16) of the MV Act, and the said vehicle with attachment falls within the definition 'construction equipment vehicle' under Rule 2(ca) of the Rules, for which the insurer issued a valid and effective policy of insurance Ex. R. 1-'CPM policy', receiving an additional premium of Rs. 2,500/- to cover third party risk excluding contractual risk, in respect of claims both fatal and non-fatal, of persons, hence the MACT was not justified in absolving the insurer from the liability to pay the compensation.

6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the insurer seeks to sustain the judgment and award impugned as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference.

7. The 'CPM Poli