Judgment The Appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, filed this appeal challenging the award, dated 04.10.2006, in O.P.No.113 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by granting Rs.50,000/-to the first respondent, who is the husband of the deceased and Rs.75,000/-to the second and third respondens who are children of the deceased with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The appellant is the second respondent before the Tribunal. The first respondent herein is the husband of the deceased and the second and third respondents are the children of the deceased before the Tribunal. The fourth respondent herein is the first respondent/driver and owner of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920. 3. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 30.10.2004, the first respondent who is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920 respectively engaged the deceased and others to harvest and transport groundnut oil at their Village Diguvapalli. While the deceased and others were returning in the tractor, the driver of the same drove it in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the trailer turned turtle. The deceased and others sustained injuries and the deceased succumbed to death. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for the death of the deceased. 5. The case of the claimants is that the first respondent, who is the holder of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920, engaged the deceased and others as coolies to harvest and transport groundnut from his fields to their Village Diguvapalli. While they were returning from the fields to their village in the tractor and trailer, the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tractor and trailer turned turtle and the deceased sustained injuries and later died. While they were returning from the fields to their village in the tractor and trailer, the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the tractor and trailer turned turtle and the deceased sustained injuries and later died. It is also the case of the claimants that the deceased was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing agricultural coolie work and she was one of the earning members of their family. Muchukota Police Station registered a criminal case in Crime No.69 of 2004 against the first respondent/owner and driver of the tractor and trailer. 6. The first respondent/owner and driver of the tractor and trailer remainedex parte. The second respondent/insurance company contested the case and denied the material averments made by the claimants. 7. The second respondent/insurance company resisted the claim by filing counter mainly on the ground that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and, therefore, her risk is not covered as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the first respondent/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy while allowing the passengers to travel in the tractor and trailer. The first respondent/driver and owner of the tractor and trailer does not possess a valid driving licence. Hence, the second respondent/insurance company desired this appeal to be dismissed. 8. The Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 30.10.2004 due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 02C 7919 and 7920 by its driver and caused the death of the Saroja? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief? 9. On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant, who is the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one Chamundeswari was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, one T. Imtiyaz Ahammed was examined as R.W.1 and a copy of Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B-1. 10. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. 11. 10. On Issue No.1, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer. 11. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal, considering the age of the deceased as 25 years, has taken the multiplier of 17 and the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and determined the loss of earnings of the deceased at Rs.2,14,000/-, but however, restricted the same to Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the claimants. 12. On the point whether the first respondent/insured has violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy, the Tribunal held that Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy prohibited the use of vehicle for carriage of passengers for hire and reward and that the deceased was not a passenger carried for hire and reward. Therefore, the second respondent/insurance company has to indemnify the injured. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 13. The only contention of Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since the first respondent/insured has not paid any additional premium covering the risk of the coolies, the second respondent/insurance company is not liable to indemnify the deceased and that the first respondent/insured has violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B-1-Insurance Policy by engaging passengers to travel in the trailer attached to the tractor. 14. The only point that is left for consideration is whether fastening of liability on the second respondent/insurance company is justified. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ONGOLE VS. TUMU GURAVA REDDY AND OTHERS 1998 (5) ALT 271 ,wherein it is observed that the tractor intended to be used for agriculture purpose is covered by insurance and when coolies were transported with the tractor to work in the field of the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be treated as carrying the passengers for hire or reward and, therefore, there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in such situation. 16. The specific case of the claimants is that the first respondent engaged the deceased to harvest and transport groundnut crop in his fields. 16. The specific case of the claimants is that the first respondent engaged the deceased to harvest and transport groundnut crop in his fields. The first claimant, who was examined as P.W.1, specifically deposed that the first respondent engaged the deceased and other coolies to harvest and transport the groundnut crop from his fields to their Village Diguvapalli and that while they were returning from the fields to their village Diguvapalli in the trailer attached to the tractor belonging to the first respondent, the accident occurred. In the cross-examination, he categorically deposed that on that day, the deceased along with others worked in the fields of the first respondent. He denied the suggestion that 30 persons were travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident. He has also denied the suggestion that the deceased and others were travelling as unauthorized passengers in the tractor and trailer. It has to be seen that no suggestion was given to P.W.1 that the deceased and others were being carried for hire or reward. 17. R.W.1, who was examined on behalf of the second respondent/insurance company, deposed that the deceased and others were engaged for plucking groundnut crop in the fields. His only contention is that the first respondent has not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of passengers. 18. Ex.B-1-copy of the Insurance policy limitations have been specifically provided as follows: “The policy covers use of the vehicle for any purpose other than: (a)Organised racing/ (b)Pace making/(c)Reliability Trials/(d)Speed Testing/(e)Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disable Mechanically propelled vehicle/(f)use for carriage of passengers for hire or reward.” 19. Admittedly, the tractor and trailer was used for carrying the coolies to harvest the groundnut crop. Therefore, it cannot be said that those coolies were passengers being carried for hire and reward. Therefore, it is clear that the second respondent/insurance company cannot avoid its liability. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and, hence, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the award, dated 04.10.2006, in O.P.No.113 of 2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur. There shall be no order as to costs.