Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. (C) No. 92/2013 and 93/2013 as both the appeals arising out of same accident and are directed against the award dated 18-10-2012 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gariaband, District Gariaband (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case Nos. 81/2009 and 80/2009 respectively by which the liability of payment of compensation has been saddled upon the Insurance Co. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under:--

2.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (Claim Case No. 81/2009) and respondent No. 1 (Claim Case No. 80/2009) filed claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading inter alia that on 20-4-2009 while deceased Nurendra Kumar Sahu and injured claimant Omprakash were going to Rajim from Village Ghoghra by motorcycle, offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration No. CG-04/D.M.-0523 driven by its driver Tikamchand Sahu, owned by Seetaram Sahu and insured by appellant/Insurance Co., dashed the motorcycle by which Nurendra Kumar died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident whereas Omprakash sustained multiple injuries in the said accident. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Fingeshwer and offence was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC and charge-sheet has been filed and the matter is pending consideration before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajim.

2.2. Respondents/driver and owner of the offending vehicle also resisted the claim of the claimants.

2.3. Appellant/Insurance Co. has also filed its written statement and opposed the claim of the claimants pleading inter alia that at the time of accident a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was separately registered but not insured with the appellant and many persons of "Mahila Samiti" were travelling in the trolley; it was further pleaded that as the driver of the offending vehicle tractor did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, the appellant/Insurance Co. is not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants.

2.4. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, had granted compensation of Rs. 4,76,400/- to the claimants (Claim Case No. 81/2009) whereas granted Rs. 53,000/- to the injured claimant (Claimant Case No. 80/2009) along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment in both the claim cases. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor did have licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and the Tractor is a Light Motor Vehicle and thus, the Insurance Co. is liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants.

2. Shri Devershi Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Co. would submit that the Tribunal has committed a legal error in holding that respondent/driver of the offending vehicle Tractor did have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. He would further submit that at the time of accident a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was separately insured by other Insurance Co. and several persons were sitting in the trolley and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is contrary to the law and as such the impugned award fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Co. deserves to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri C.K. Sahu, learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents supported the award impugned and would submit in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Co. which does not call for any interference.

4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including award impugned.

5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following point