JUDGMENT :

M A CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Both the above titled appeals, though against two separate awards passed in two claim petitions by the same Tribunal, arising out of same vehicular accident and involving same question of law regarding liability of insurer or the insured in case of gratuitous passengers having been disabled in the accident, are proposed to be taken up and disposed of through the medium of this common judgment.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company, through the medium of the instant two appeals, has assailed the awards dated 24.12.2016 passed separately by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri in File No.160/166 titled ‘Pritam Singh V. Hardesh Kumar & Anr.’ granting compensation to the tune of Rs.3,23,000/- along with interest and in File No. 126/166 titled ‘Romesh Chander V. Hardesh Kumar & Anr.’ granting compensation to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/- alongwith interest in favour of the claimants- Pritam Singh and Romesh Chander.

3. The appellant has assailed the impugned awards allegedly having been passed by the Tribunal below contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the established legal principles alleging that the Tribunal had failed to consider the defense raised by the appellant as Insurer of the offending vehicle and also that, without there being substantive evidence, the compensation has been awarded relying on presumptive income of the claimants.

4. The factual backgrounds of the claim petitions are that a Tractor with registration number JK11/0709 (Offending Vehicle) driven by respondent no.2 on 19.03.2012 met with an accident on the roadside near Khandli Bridge Mehra Nagrota of District Rajouri causing grievous injuries to some of the people including claimants resulting into their permanent disability. The claimants filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal below for grant of compensation. After entertaining the objections from the respondents therein including the appellant herein, the aforesaid compensation was granted in favour of the claimants and appellant Insurer was held liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle, as on date of accident, was insured with the appellant.

5. The appellant- Company was stated to have filed objections raising legal and factual defenses including that the claimants were gratuitous passengers on the offending vehicle and that the driver also did not hold a valid and effective driving licence, as such, there was no liability of the appellant Company to pay compensation for the contravention of the insurance policy; the Tribunal had raised various issues and the claimants, besides themselves, had examined eye- witnesses and a medical expert and placed on record certified copies of the chargesheet arising out of FIR registered in the case by the police. The appellant as respondent-insurer before the Tribunal, in support of its case, had examined its law officer, IO of the criminal case and official from the registering authority, who confirmed that the tractor had seating capacity only for the driver and that the terms of the insurance policy excluded gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal, however, decided both the claim petitions in favour of the claimants, granting them compensation holding appellant-Insurer liable to pay compensation for its contractual obligations towards the insured for his tortuous liability for the negligence of the agent of the insurer i.e. the driver.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, restricted his arguments to one aspect of the case only that the claimants were travelling by the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers when it had met with an accident, causing injuries resulting into disabilities, as such, the appellant- Insurer had no liability to pay compensation for the gratuitous passengers as in the case of a tractor only one person is under the cover of insurance. He has further argued that the claimants had wrongly pleaded before the Tribunal below that they had been waiting for bus at Mehra Nagrota