JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant - insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30^th April, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Vadodara in MACP no.2034 of 2002.

2. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. The original claimants have been held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization from the original opponents jointly and severally with proportionate cost. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the appellant - insurance company.

3. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 20^th October, 2016 has admitted the appeal. In the interim application for stay filed by the applicant-appellant - insurance company, this Court vide order dated 20^th October, 2016 had passed a conditional order of stay against the impugned judgment and award, subject to the deposit of the entire award amount with the concerned Tribunal. Further directions were issued to the Tribunal to disburse 30% of the aforesaid amount in favour of the claimants. The remaining 70% of the deposited amount was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit scheme in the name of the claimants with any nationalized bank. The periodical interest was permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants, and the FDRs were directed to be renewed from time to time, which were made subject to the outcome of the appeal.

4. Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing on caveat, has waived notice of admission of appeal. The record and proceedings being made available, with the able assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective parties, the appeal is peremptorily heard finally.

5. Mr. Digvijaysing Bisht, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned advocate on record for the appellant - insurance company and has assailed the impugned judgment and award by disputing the liability to pay the amount of compensation.

5.1 Learned advocate at the outset has invited my attention to the manner in which the accident was reported. It was submitted that, admittedly, the appellant - insurance company is the insurance company of the trailer which was attached to the tractor whereas the tractor is not insured at the time of accident. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has held the driver of the tractor solely negligent towards the occurrence of the accident. It was also contended that admittedly the labourers were sitting on the tractor and not on the trailer. In this regard, the attention of this Court was invited to the contents of the FIR produced on record. With such facts evident on record, it was submitted that the appellant, being the insurance company of the trailer, could not have been fastened with the liability to pay any amount of compensation. He has therefore urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award and to exonerate the appellant - insurance company from its liability to pay compensation.

6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - original claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence of the claimant (Exh.31) as well as the FIR and the panchnama produced on record. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence on record, the Tribunal has observed that in cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that he, along with his wife, were sitting inside the trolley. However, he has no evidence to justify the same. As against the aforesaid evidence, the evidence of the officer of the insurance company suggests that the premium was accepted to co