COMMON JUDGMENT:

Since both these appeals arise out of the same award, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3607 of 2008 is preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the award and decree dated 02-04-2008 in O.P.No.1711 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad. M.A.C.M.A.No.1943 of 2009 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and its liability.

3. Heard learned counsel for the claimants Mr. L. Dayakar Reddy and learned counsel for the Insurance Company Mr. P. Harinath Gupta and perused the record.

4. The brief facts are that on 20-03-2002, while the deceased Utla Galavva @ Gangavva was travelling in a trailer bearing No.AP-25-T-750 attached to Tractor bearing No.AP-25-T-749 from Domaledgi Village to Rudrur Village, as a labourer and when the tractor reached in the limits of Rudrur Vilage, its driver drove the same at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooterist, who was going ahead, thereafter, the driver of tractor lost control over it and it turned turtle, due to which the deceased received multiple and grievous injuries to her head and died on the spot. The claimants have filed OP., claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in the accident.

5. Respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the death of the deceased, her age, avocation and income. It is stated that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by its rider and the owner and insurer of the scooter are necessary parties to the claim petition. It is stated that the amount claimed is highly excessive.

6. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence gave a finding that as per the charge sheet-Ex.A1, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and granted compensation of Rs.3,14,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that while computing the compensation, the Tribunal has not considered all the heads and the compensation that was granted is not reasonable.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the policy is an Act policy and the vehicle is insured for non-agricultural purpose and as per the policy, only the driver of the vehicle was covered. He submits that even if assuming that there are labourers, the labourers are not covered as per the policy and once they are not covered, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

9. In this factual backdrop, the point that arises for determination is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is just and proper.

10. Coming to the liability of the Insurance Company, according to the Insurance Company, the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger and as per the claimants, she was travelling as labourer at the time of accident. This Court has perused the policy. It is an Act policy and the premium was paid only to the driver and the vehicle is for non-agricultural purpose and no premium was paid for the labourers for the purpose of loading and unloading. The Honourable Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Prembhai Patel1, in similar set of facts, has held that as per the policy, as it is an Act liability, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle are liable to satisfy the award.

1 (2005) 6 SCC 172

11. In this case, the deceased was aged about 48 years. According to the claimants, she was a labourer working on contract basis and doing vegetable business and also milk vendor and cultivating her own lands and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. But the Tribunal considering the deceased as housewife, t