1. These are the three appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, preferred by the owner and driver of Tractor-Trolley, bearing registration No. CG15-A/1653-1654, assailing the awards dated 11.5.2012 in M.A.C. Case No. 235 of 2011, dated 11.5.2012 in M.A.C. Case No. 130 of 2011 and dated 28.11.2013 in M.A.C. Case No. 81 of 2012, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, respectively.

2. Deceased Ashok Ghasi, whose legal heir had filed M.A.C. Case No. 235 of 2011, the another deceased Shiv Prasad, whose legal heirs had filed M.A.C. Case No. 81 of 2012, and the injured Manohar Ram, who had filed M.A.C. Case No. 130 of 2011, were travelling in the offending Tractor- Trolley as 'Barati' on 21.4.2006. The said Tractor-Trolley dashed against a bauxite Truck from the back, as a result of which Ashok Ghasi and Shiv Prasad succumbed to the injuries and the Manohar Ram sustained injuries.

3. The aforementioned claim applications were filed and the Tribunals in the process of deciding these claim applications, vide impugned awards have granted a compensation of Rs. 4,44,000/- in favour of the legal heir of deceased Ashok Ghasi, Rs. 1,72,000/- in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased Shiv Prasad and Rs. 28,642/- in favour of the injured Manohar Ram, fastening the liability to pay the compensation jointly and severally upon the owner and driver of the offending Tractor-Trolley, while exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation. These are the awards which are under challenge in the present three appeals by the owner of the offending Tractor-Trolley.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the offending Tractor-Trolley at the relevant point of time was duly insured. That since it was duly insured and that there being no sufficient proof which has come on record before the Tribunal to establish that the Tractor-Trolley was not being used for the marriage function for carrying the ‘Barati’ for a marriage procession, the liability could not have been fastened upon the owner and driver and it should have been duly fastened upon the Insurance Company. He further submits that the Tribunals have further not appreciated the fact that the FIR was lodged by one Dev Prasad but the said person was not examined before the Tribunals to prove the contents of the FIR and only relying upon the contents of the FIR, the Insurance Company has been discharged of its liability and the liability has been fastened upon the owner and driver. He thus prayed that the impugned awards may be modified accordingly.

5. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company however submits that since there was evidence before the Tribunal so far as the FIR is concerned which shows that the offending Tractor-Trolley was being used for commercial purpose and not for agricultural purpose and that the Insurance Company has also led the evidence of its administrative officer to establish this fact. He further submits that it is a case where on the offending Tractor-Trolley there were a large number of people travelling which itself shows that the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose. In addition, Counsel for the Insurance Company has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Kaushik & Others v. Smt. Pramila Bai Loniya & Others, 2015 (3) C.G.L.J. 427.

6. Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, what is not in dispute is the fact that the accident did take place on 21.4.2016 as a result of which the deceased Ashok Ghasi and Shiv Prasad succumbed to the injuries and the injured Manohar Ram sustained grievous injuries. It is also not in dispute that the Claimants had filed their respective claim applications before the concerned Tribunals under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same were d