JUDGMENT :

1. These appeals have been laid as against the award and decree dated 30.01.2014 made in OP.No.1001, 1002 & 1004 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate Judge), Tirupattur

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 23.01.2008, when they were travelling as loading and unloading cooli in a tractor trailer loaded with bricks, its driver had driven the tractor in a rash and negligence manner, due to which the tractor and trailer capsized on the road. In the said accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries. They were immediately taken to Government Hospital, Tirupattur for treatment. They have become permanently disabled and filed separate claim petitions respectively.

4. Resisting the same, the second respondent filed counter stating that the tractor belongs to the first respondent which was insured with the second respondent under farmers package policy. The coolis travelled in the tractor trailer have no coverage and no extra premium has been paid by the first respondent. The tractor and trailer should be used only for agricultural purpose. Whereas the first respondent used the tractor and trailer for commercial purpose by carrying bricks in the trailer. Therefore, the second respondent is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Further stated that the driver of the tractor trailer did not possess any valid driving licence. Therefore, the policy does not cover coolis to pay any compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. On the side of the claimants, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1 to R.W.3 and marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4. On the basis of the evidence available on records and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Tribunal fastened liability on the second respondent and awarded compensation in all the claim petitions respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent came forward with the present appeals questioning the liability alone.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tractor and trailer owned by the first respondent was insured under farmers package policy. Therefore, the coolis travelled in the tractor trailer have no coverage and no extra premium has been paid and as such the second respondent has no contractual liability to pay any compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have directed the insurance company to pay compensation with liberty to recover the same from the first respondent. The insurance policy does not cover liability to the coolis and the seating capacity of the tractor is zero and no other provision for seats. When the tractor and trailer having no seating capacity, the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Suresh K.K. and another reported in 2008 ACJ 1741 and the judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Limited, Gopichettipalayam Vs Gurusamy & 2 others rendered in CMA.No.2919 of 2007 by this Court.

7. Heard, Mr.D.Bhaskaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though notice was served and names are also printed in the cause list, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents before this Court in person or through pleader.

8. The tractor and trailer belong to the first respondent which was insured with the second respondent under the farmers package policy. On 23.01.2008, all the claimants were travelling as loading and unloading coolis in the tractor and trailer loaded with bricks. The driver of the tractor and trailer had driven the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the tractor and trailer capsized on the road side. In the accident, the claimants hav