JUDGMENT These three appeals arise out of the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Khammam on 18-03-2002 in O.P.Nos. 257, 259 and 253 of 1998 arising out of the same accident and are, hence, being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. One G.K.L. Rao working as Chief Engineer with Singareni Collieries Company Limited had the company car APH 1913 allotted to him, which was being driven by the 1st respondent in the three claim petitions. When Sri Rao was going with his family from Kothagudem to Hyderabad for medical check-up on 05-05-1995, the accident occurred at about 5-30 a.m. when the 1st respondent's rash and negligent driving resulted in the car dashing against a stationed lorry, on which Crime NO.87 of 1995 was registered. The death of Sudhakar Rao, Kanaka Lingeswar Rao and Bhavani Shankar due to the accident resulted in the three claim petitions by their respective dependents and the driver and owner of the car admitted the accident, but denied the accident to be due to the negligence and rashness of the car driver. They put the blame on the lorry driver who allegedly did not switch off his vehicle lights and they put the claimants to strict proof of the other allegations. 3. The insurer contested the claims contending that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased themselves and that as the vehicle was used on hire basis, the insurer is not liable to pay any amount. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation in all the three petitions and after recording the oral and documentary evidence during the enquiry, rendered the impugned awards granting different sums of compensation. The Tribunal concluded that the rash and negligent driving of the car alone resulted in the accident and it further concluded that the vehicle was taken by G.K.L. Rao on chargeable basis as per Ex. B-1. It also held that even if the vehicle has to be presumed to have been taken on hire by G.K.L. Rao, the insurer cannot escape its liability in the light of the decision of this Court in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Koya Ratnam. B-1. It also held that even if the vehicle has to be presumed to have been taken on hire by G.K.L. Rao, the insurer cannot escape its liability in the light of the decision of this Court in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Koya Ratnam. The Tribunal held that as there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurer is at liberty to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal held that though it is a fact that the 2nd respondent-owner had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy Ex. B-3, the 3rd respondent cannot escape its liability and is at liberty to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent. The claim petitions were allowed accordingly against all the three respondents, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the amounts awarded. 5. The insurer basically challenges the awards on the ground of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy absolving it from the liability and also contended that the 2nd respondent, being a Central Government Company, can itself satisfy the awards without any necessity of application of the principle of 'pay and recover', resulting in multiplicity of proceedings. It was also incidentally contended that the compensation claimed and granted was excessive and exorbitant. 6. Smt. M. Seetha Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer and Sri E. Anjana Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri T.S.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants are heard in extenso, against and for the awards. 7. Though the appellant attempted to question the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal also in the three awards, no definite reasons or grounds were alleged in support of such a plea and apart from the assessment of the Tribunal about the quantum of compensation to be awarded being as per the accepted norms and for sound reasons, nothing has been shown from the pleadings or evidence on record to show the existence of any strong ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded. 8. The primary challenge to the 'legality of the awards is only on the strength of the vehicle allegedly being given on hire by the 2nd respondent, owner/insured, to G.K.L. Rao in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. The primary challenge to the 'legality of the awards is only on the strength of the vehicle allegedly being given on hire by the 2nd respondent, owner/insured, to G.K.L. Rao in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In support of the said claim of the insurer, was the evidence of R.W.2, the Senior Assistant of the appellant in all the three cases referring to EX.B-1 report from G.K.L. Rao to the 2nd respondent about the car being utilized by him on chargeable basis. Ex. B-1 report reveals that Sri G.K.L. Rao has stated therein that he took permission from the company to go to Hyderabad in his car NO.APH 1913 (obviously officially allotted to him) on chargeable basis. Whether grant of such permission by the company to its officer to use his official car on chargeable basis amounts to hiring the vehicle to that officer in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, is open to doubt. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that whenever official vehicles are utilized for private use by the officers of the Central or State Governments or Government owned or controlled Bodies, the officers are liable to pay the user charges at the rates prescribed by the respective Governments or Organizations, from time to time. The same may not amount to hiring the vehicle as understood in the literary sense or the legal sense. If so, whether there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in question, cannot be considered to have been established from Ex. B-1 alone. 9. Even otherwise, the principle generally made applicable by a number of precedents in cases of such violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policies directing the insurer to pay and recover the same from the insured, cannot be said to be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of these three cases and the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong on this aspect when it directed the insurer to pay and recover from the owner. As such, I find no strong reasons to interfere with the awards in question. 10. As such, I find no strong reasons to interfere with the awards in question. 10. However, it should be made dear that as this Court is declining to interfere with the awards in question, any expression of opinion in the course of this common judgment cannot be construed as any finding on merits adverse to the conclusions and directions of the Tribunal about the right of the insurer to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle. It is, hence, made clear that this judgment is not intended to interfere with the rights and Liabilities of the parties as per the awards in question, in any manner. 11. In the results, the appeals are dismissed without costs.