Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—Heard Sri Saral Srivastava for the appellant and Sri Neeraj Srivastava for the claimant-respondents in all the above appeals. No one appeared on behalf of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

2. These five appeals have been filed by the Insurer of tractor No. UP 85 L 0438 challenging awards dated 2.5.2006 passed separately by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura in M.A.C.P. Nos.161, 163, 165, 209 and 212 of 2004 by which compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- with 6%interest from the date of claim has been separately awarded to the claimants of each of the claim petitions. As the aforesaid claim petitions arose out of a common accident dated 16.5.2004, involving a common offending vehicle i.e. Tractor No. UP 85 L 0438, in which as many as five children traveling in a rickshaw died on account of the injuries which they received in the accident and all these appeals raise common questions of law and fact, for the sake of convenience and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties are being decided together by a common judgment.

3. First Appeal From Order No. 1962 of 2006 arises out of claim petition No. 161 of 2004, which was filed by the parents of the deceased girl child Vimlesh, aged six years. First Appeal From Order No. 1963 of 2006 arises out of claim petition No. 212 of 2004, which was filed by the parents of deceased girl child Puja, aged 10 years. First Appeal From Order No. 1964 of 2006 arises out of claim petition No. 209 of 2004, which was filed by the parents of deceased girl child Arti, aged 8 years. First Appeal From Order No. 1965 of 2006 arises out of claim petition No. 163 of 2004, which was filed by the parents of deceased girl child Geeta, aged 12 years. And First Appeal From Order No. 1966 of 2006 arises out of claim petition No. 165 of 2004, which was filed by the parents of deceased male child Lokesh, aged 6 years.

4. In all these claim petitions, the Tribunal, on the basis of the statement of rickshaw puller as well as documentary evidence like the first information report, charge sheet, etc., came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor No. UP 85 L 0438, which hit the rickshaw that was carrying several children, thereby causing serious injuries to as many as five minor children, which resulted in their death. The Tribunal awarded compensation by taking the notional annual income of the deceased minor at Rs. 15,000/- and after deducting one third from the annual income, a multiplicand of 10,000/- was obtained to which a multiplier of 15 was applied and, thereafter, Rs. 2000/- was added towards funeral expenses so as to arrive at a compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/-. The Tribunal found that the offending vehicle (tractor) was insured with the appellant on the date of the accident and as a valid driving licence of the driver of the tractor, involved in the accident, was produced before the Tribunal, liability was fastened on the Insurance Company i.e. the appellant.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned awards on ground that from the evidence on record it was established that a trolley filled with mud was attached to the tractor and as such the same was being used for commercial purpose. It was submitted that on attachment of trolley, the tractor became a “goods carriage vehicle”, which was otherwise insured only for agricultural purposes, therefore, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and as such no liability ought to have been fastened on the insurance company and if any direction were to be issued to the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount then it ought to have been given a right to recover from the owner of the tractor.

6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Sri Saral Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the