1. Group of a dozen of these appeals is being disposed of by this common Judgment inasmuch as they are intertwined and involve common questions of facts and law. Half dozen of these appeals are preferred by the New India Insurance Company (For short - N.I.I.Co.) and half of them are by the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (For short - U.I.I.Co.). Both the insurers challenge awards rendered under provision of Section 3 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (8 of 1923) (For short - W.C.Act).

2. U.I.I.Co. is insurer for tractor vehicle bearing No.MH-22-B-6908. N.I.I.Co. is insurer for trolley/trailer No.MH-23-C-8296. The tractor and the trolley are owned by respondent - Dnyanoba.

3. The incident giving rise to six claim petitions occurred on January 14, 1991. The tractor with the attached trolley were sent for to fetch clay from an earthen fortress of village Dighol- Islampur. The said work was assigned to the employees by the vehicle owner - Dnyanoba. The tractor and the trolley were parked in the proximity of earthen fortress (Gadhi). Six labours were engaged in excavating earth at the rampart whereas, driver - Deelip was standing at a short distance. All of a sudden, the rampart of earthen, construction collapsed. Before the poor labours and driver could have any premonition of what was happening, suddenly big lumps of earth and dust befell on them. All of them were pressed under the heap of earth and debris, which mounted over and above them. They soon were buried in dusty grave and died of asphyxia. The calamity was reported to nearby police station by one of the injured - Bhanudas Rathod. A spot panchnama was drawn by the Police. The dead bodies of labours and the driver were wriggled out from under the heap of debris.

4. The dependents/legal representatives of the deceased labours and the driver filed claim petitions for compensation under the W.C.Act. They asserted that the deceased used to earn daily wages of Rs.100/- each. The claimants asserted that the deaths of concerned labours and the driver were caused in the course of their employment with the owner of the vehicles, viz., respondent No.2 - Dnyanoba Rathod. They submitted that the vehicles were duly insured with both the above insurers and hence, all the three were jointly and severally liable to indemnify them.

5. The owner - Dnyanoba admitted that the deceased were employed by him as labours and driver. He, however, disputed quantum of compensation claimed by the legal representatives of the deceased. He denied the age and other details set out in each of the claim petitions. He asserted that both the insurers were liable to pay the compensation, if the claimants need be indemnified.

6. Both the appellants resisted the claim petitions mainly on the ground that vehicles were being used for transportation of earthen lumps and dry clay required for construction of a house and, therefore, there was fundamental breach of the terms of policy. They asserted that the insurance contract pertained to specific agreement to the effect that the vehicles shall be used only for agricultural purposes. They further asserted that the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving licence. According to them, the accident in question had no remote nexus with the use of the vehicles and, therefore, they cannot be made liable to indemnify the claimants. They pointed out that the tractor and the trolley were parked at a short distance and were in stationary position when the rampart of earthen work collapsed while the digging process was on going. They also pleaded that risk of the casual labours is not covered under the insurance contract between them and the owner. They alleged that the mishap was vis-major (act of God) and hence, they cannot be held liable to indemnify the claimants. They, alternatively, attempted to toss the liability on each other. For, appellant - U.I.I.Co. contended that the head of the tractor could not be used for transportation of labours or for tran