The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on the insurance company to establish breach of the insurance contract and the liability for compensation.

L.C. Bhadoo, J.

1. The above miscellaneous appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as all these appeals are arising out of the same incident.

2. M.A. Nos. 1019/2003, 1020/2003 and 1021/2003 have been filed by appellants Baijnath, Champa, Pila Dau, Aadharmati and Jhingur Yadav under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 questioning legality and correctness of the award dated 31-7-2003 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazaar in Claim Case Nos. 31/2000, 28/2000 and 29/2000, on the ground that the compensation amount awarded to the appellants Is much lower, whereas they are entitled for more compensation amount. M.A. Nos. 811/2003, 962/2003, 1012/2003 and 1013/2003 have been filed by appellant Awadh Ram Sahu on the ground that the tractor trolley in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, therefore, liability for payment of the award ought to have been fixed on the Insurance Company instead of on the appellant.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that in the intervening night of 11th and 12th May, 2000, stone slabs were loaded in the trolley bearing No. MP-23/G-9047 which was attached with the tractor bearing No. MP 23/G-9046 from the stone queries of Sohagpur (Dhobni). At about 12 in the midnight, the tractor started from the stone queries of Sohagpur for Tumin (Bhawarpur). The tractor was being driven by Chandrika Prasad Sahu in rash and negligent manner, therefore, when the tractor reached on culvert of Jharband trolley turned turtle. Tungnath Sahu, Rohit Kumar, Ghanshyam, Jhingur and Manbodh were sitting in the said trolley at the time of accident. Rohit Kumar, Tungnath Sahu and Ghanshyam died on the spot, whereas Jhingur and Manbodh sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, Baijnath & Champa, legal heirs of Rohit Kumar, filed Claim Case No. 31/2000, whereas Pila Dau and Aadharmati, legal heirs of Tungnath Sahu, filed Claim Case No. 28/2000, injured Jhingur filed Claim Case No. 29/2000 and injured Manbodh filed Claim Case No. 30/2000 before the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazaar. However, legal heirs/parents of Ghanshyam namely, Pukram Satnami and Kalash Bai had filed Claim Case No. 8/2000 before the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund.

4. In the appeals filed by Awadhram Sahu, common question has been raised that the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, therefore, responsibility of compensation ought to have been fixed on the Insurance Company, as the tractor in question was insured for agricultural purposes, at the time of accident, stone slabs were being transported for the purpose of constructing platform around the tube well and for fixing the stone slabs at the bottom of water drain to channelise water in the farm house of Ustram, friend of son of Ramlal, i.e., registered owner of the tractor-trolley, as such, the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes. Further case was that the registered owner of the said tractor was Ramlal Sahu, who was son-in-law of Awadhram Sahu, and the tractor in question was sold, by Ramlal Sahu to Awadhram Sahu. Whereas, reply of the Insurance Company was that the registered owner of the tractor was Ramlal Sahu who transferred the tractor to Awadhram Sahu without informing the Insurance Company. The tractor in question was being used for commercial purposes by Awadhram Sahu and his driver Chandrika Prasad Sahu, at the time of accident, whereas the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes. Therefore, there was breach of contract of insurance, as such, the insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant Awadhram Sahu, at the outset, argued that even though Ramlal, who died during the pendency of claim petitions, was registered owner of the tractor, the tractor in question was