An insurance company is not liable for an accident involving a vehicle used for a purpose other than that specified in the insurance policy.

A.K. Mathur, C.J.

1. All the aforesaid six cases arise out of one accident, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Misc. Appeal Nos. 309, 310 and 311 of 1993 are filed by the appellant Sukhnandan Ram Sahu, owner of the tractor and trolley; Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 1993 is filed by claimants Sukaloo and others; Misc. Appeal No. 299 of 1993 is filed by claimants Bisahin and others and Civil Revision No. 264 of 1993 is filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. For convenient disposal of all the aforesaid cases, the facts given in Misc. Appeal No. 309 of 1993 (Sukhnandan Ram Sahu v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) are taken into consideration.

4. On 28.2.1988 in the evening, the appellant Sukhnandan Ram Sahu, owner of the tractor and trolley, directed his younger brother Madanlal that he should take the tractor to Mahasamund for some agricultural work on the next day and had sent Bisahu, Jailal, Puniyabai, Suklabai, Derha and Mongrabai as coolies to Mahasamund in the tractor-trolley. It is alleged that Madanlal was driving the said tractor-trolley rashly and negligently and he lost the balance near Mongra Bridge and it turned turtle. The accident occurred at about 11.30 p.m. The injured Mongrabai was sent to D.K. Hospital for treatment where she died on 2.3.1988. A report of the said accident was lodged in the Police Station Mahasamund and on the basis of the said report a Crime No. 62 of 1988 under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was registered.

5. It is alleged that the deceased Mongrabai was doing a job of labourer and she was earning Rs. 15 per day. She had left her husband, two minor daughters and one minor son. It is alleged that Sukalu was her second husband and her first husband was Kanhai Rawat. It is alleged that Murha was born from her first husband Kanhai Rawat and at that time Murha was a minor. After the death of Mongrabai, Murha was living with his maternal uncle (Mama). Murha claimed as legal heir of the deceased Mongrabai; therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased Mongrabai filed the claim petition and claimed compensation of Rs. 1,15,000. Therefore, a claim petition was filed by Sukalu and the other dependants of the deceased Mongrabai, vide Claim Case No. 3 of 1990.

6. In the said accident, Suklabai also died; therefore, a claim petition was also filed by her dependants, which came to be registered as Claim Case No. 5 of 1990. The third claim petition was filed on account of death of Jailal, by his dependants for compensation, which came to be registered as Claim Case No. 4 of 1990.

7. All these three claim petitions were preferred on account of the aforesaid accident. The Tribunal, after recording necessary evidence on record from both the sides, came to the conclusion that the death was caused on account of rash and negligent driving by Madanlal and, therefore, the Tribunal decreed the Claim Petition No. 3 of 1990 against the owner of the vehicle in question and awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,15,200 and apportioned the same between the claimants. Another Claim Case No. 4 of 1990 was decreed against the owner of the tractor by the Tribunal and the Tribunal awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 78,800 and it was apportioned between the claimants and the third Claim Petition No. 5 of 1990 was also decreed by the Tribunal against the owner of the tractor and the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 64,800 and it was apportioned between the claimants.

8. In all these three aforesaid awards, the Tribunal has totally exonerated the insurance company from liability. Hence, the appeals (M.A. Nos. 309, 310 and 311 of 1993) have been filed by Sukhnandan Ram Sahu, owner of the tractor, against exonerating the insurance company of the liability. Appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 1993) has been filed by the claimants Sukaloo and others and also the appeal (M.A. No. 299 of 1993) has been filed by Bisahin and others, against exonerating the insurance company of the l