S.G. Shah, J.

1. The appellants are original respondents No. 2 and 4 being owner of the vehicle involved in the road accident. Respondents No. 1 to 7 are original claimants; whereas, respondent No. 8 is driver of the vehicle owned by the appellants and respondent No. 9 is insurer of such vehicle. They are hereinafter referred in their original capacity before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in their respective Motor Accident Claim Petitions. M.A.C.P. No. 338 of 1989 was filed by legal heirs and dependents of the victim of the road accident, namely, Kantilal Keshabhai, whereas M.A.C.P. No. 331 of 1989 was filed by the parents of the victim of the same accident, namely, Dasrathbhai Mohanbhai. Since both the victims had died in the same vehicular accident, the Tribunal has decided their claim petition by common consolidated impugned judgment and award dated 18.4.1992, whereby, claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 338 of 1989 were awarded Rs. 7,92,000/- as compensation for the death of Kantilal Keshavbhai with 12% interest and cost throughout, whereas claimants of the M.A.C.P. No. 331 of 1989 were awarded an amount of Rs. 97,000/- for the death of Dasrathbhai Mohanbhai with 12% interest and cost throughout. However, Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from indemnifying the owner of the vehicle being present appellants on the ground that there was clear breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to indemnify the owners. In view of such situation, the present appeals are preferred by owners of the vehicle being semi-Government Corporation, namely, Gujarat Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. and its subsidiary, namely, Ahmedabad Dairy, who are owning and utilising the vehicle in question for their activities. First Appeal No. 1875 of 1992 was against the award in M.A.C.P. No. 338 of 1989 whereas First Appeal No. 1876 of 1992 is against award in M.A.C.P. No. 331 of 1989. However, since common question of law in involved and when common consolidated judgment is for both the claimants, I am disposing both these appeals by this common and consolidated judgment, wherein issue regarding liability of insurance is common, whereas there would be separate discussion for quantum of compensation in both the appeals.

2. I have heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the record whereby now, this Court has to decide following three major issues:--

"(1) Whether insurance company can be held responsible for indemnifying the appellants/owners of the vehicle in question, irrespective of breach of policy condition or not.

(2) Whether amount of compensation awarded to the claimants are just and reasonable and in accordance with law or it requires any interference by way of modification

(3) What is the result."

3. So far as first issue is concerned, it would be appropriate to recollect the details of victims so also nature of accident and status of the victim with vehicle with the conditions of the insurance policy. It is undisputed fact that appellants are owning milk tanker bearing No. GTA-8910 attached with the trailer bearing No. GTD-9970, and on the date of accident i.e. 2.1.1989, such trailer-tanker was driver by opponent No. 1 and it was insured with opponent No. 4 for the period between 1.1.1989 to 31.12.1989. It is also undisputed fact that such vehicle being milk tanker attached to the trailer was used for transportation and distribution of milk for and on behalf of opponents No. 2 and 4, but unfortunately, opponent No. 1 - driver had also allowed the people to travel in such goods vehicle by offering them lift on the way against payment of fare for such transportation during his trip between Ahmedabad and Himmatnagar and thereby, the persons who were travelling in such vehicle were not gratuitous passenger, but passenger