Fakhruddin, J.

1. Since all the appeals, Misc. Appeal Nos. 37, 38 and 43 of 1997, arise out of the same accident and a common award of the Tribunal, hence, they are being decided together by a common order.

2. The accident occurred on 29.4.1989 at about 10 o'clock. The deceased persons Sarkar Dulaiya and Balwan Singh and claimant Bitti bai along with others were going in a trolley attached to the tractor No. MPW 6856 for attending a religious function. It is alleged that near Bhandar Chiragaon triangular the vehicle turned turtle and as a result thereof persons sitting on the trolley sustained injuries. Sarkar Dulaiya, a woman aged about 70 years and Balwan Singh, a boy aged 14 years, succumbed to injuries and died whereas Bitti bai survived. Three different claim petitions were filed. Claim Case No. 107 of 1996 is in respect of death of Sarkar Dulaiya, Claim Case No. 108 of 1996 in respect of death of Balwan Singh and Claim Case No. 109 of 1996 is for the injuries sustained by Bittibai. The pleading regarding rash and negligent driving is same that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor which was being driven by Gangaram. Gangaram died during pendency of this appeal and his name was deleted from the array of respondents vide order dated 27.6.1997. Claimants claimed compensation from opposite parties. During the trial before Claims Tribunal, opposite parties denied claim. Separate written statements were filed.

3. The claim was denied by the driver and owner of the tractor. The appellant insurance company also filed its written statement denying the claim. The defence taken by the insurance company is that (1) the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes (2) the trolley which was attached to the tractor was not insured and (3) the offending vehicle has been transferred by Siyaram to Bhagwandas without intimating the insurance company.

4. The Tribunal held that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. As such the defendants-respondents are liable. The pleas raised by insurance company appellant were negatived. In Claim Case No. 108 of 1996 a compensation of Rs. 60,000 has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation on account of death of Balwan Singh. In Claim Case No. 109 of 1996 an award of Rs. 5,000 has been passed with interest from the date of application till realisation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. In Claim Case No. 107 of 1996 an amount of Rs. 50,000 on account of death of Sarkar Dulaiya has been awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.

5. In Misc. Appeal Nos. 37 and 38 of 1997 the respondents have filed cross-objections.

6. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, contended that the insurance company is not liable for the claim as there is breach of the policy. It was contended that the tractor was insured only for the agricultural purposes.

7. The insurance company has not adduced any evidence. The original policy of the insurance has also not been produced by the insurance company. In the record, however, there is photocopy of policy for the period from 27.2.1989 to 26.2.1990 but on this there is no endorsement that the vehicle is insured only for agricultural purposes. In this case thus, the defence taken by the insurance company has not been substantiated by leading any evidence and as such the contention advanced by Mr. Malhotra has, therefore, no force. Counsel for appellant placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Gyasobai v. Mahendra Singh Misc. Appeal No. 329 of 1995; decided on 9.1.1997. In that case the insurance company had adduced evidence and had also proved the policy which was marked as D-l. In the present case the insurer neither led any evidence nor filed any policy.

8. Mr. Malhotra then contended that the persons who sustained injuries and deceased were tra