Abdul Rehim, J.

The above appeals and the cross objection arose from two common awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. Since the accident is one and the same in all these cases, the above appeals as well as the cross objection are considered together and disposed of through this common judgment.

2. M.A.C.A.No.3055/2008 and Cross Objection No.103/2017 in that appeal and M.A.C.A.No.2965/2009 arose from the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.963/2002. M.A.C.A.No.3061/2008 arose out of the award in O.P.(MV)No.77/2003 of the said Tribunal. The Tribunal had passed a common award in both the above said cases. In M.A.C.A.No.3055/2008 and in M.A.C.A.No.3061/2008, the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident is the appellant. M.A.C.A.No.2965/2009 is filed by the 4th petitioner/4th claimant in O.P.(MV)No.963/2002. The cross objection (C.O.No.103/2017) in M.A.C.A.No.3055/2008 is filed by the petitioners 1 to 3/claimants 1 to 3 in the said case.

3. M.A.C.A.No.2346/2008 is filed against the award in O.P.(MV)No.591/2000 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. M.A.C.A.No.2397/2008 is filed against the award in O.P.(MV)No.648/2000 of the same Tribunal. It is a common award passed by the said Tribunal in both these cases. The appellant in both those appeals is the 'Kumili Grama Panchayath', who is the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. The accident in question occurred on 9.8.2000 when a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL 6-1260 owned by the Grama Panchayath fell into a ravine on the side of a public road, allegedly due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver, who also died in the accident. There is no dispute in these appeals against the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep. In the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.591/2000 and 648/2000, the insurer of the vehicle was exonerated from the liability, based on a finding that the insured had obtained the policy by suppressing the material fact that the vehicle in question was registered as a goods vehicle. The Tribunal found that, as per Ext.B1 policy, the vehicle was insured as a passenger vehicle, but at the same time it was used as a goods vehicle. It was found that the insured had suppressed the factum of registration of the vehicle for the use of carrying goods. Therefore it was held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The above said finding in the common award of the Tribunal at Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)Nos.591/2000 and 648/2000 is under challenge at the instance of the Grama Panchayath in M.A.C.A.Nos.2346/2008 and 2397/2008. There is no dispute by any of the parties in those appeals with respect to the quantum of compensation awarded.

5. In the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)Nos.963/2002 and 77/2003, the insurer was held liable to pay the compensation. In the said cases the insurer had taken a contention before the Tribunal that the owner of the vehicle had altered the vehicle into an articulated vehicle attached with a trailer, with effect from 16.07.1993, without disclosing the said fact to the insurer. Therefore there occurred a wilful suppression of the material fact which rendered the policy as void and therefore the company is not liable, was the contention. On a perusal of Ext.B1, copy of the Registration Certificate of the motor vehicle, it was found that subsequently the registration was altered by detaching the trailer and the vehicle was permitted to be used as light motor vehicle (car). It is found that, when the endorsement of articulating the trailer was noted, the vehicle in question was exempted from payment of tax, under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act, since the vehicle was wholly used for removal of rubbish from the p