Judgment : Both appeals arise out of a common accident. M.A.C.M.A.No.3405 of 2011 is filed against the award in O.P.No.189 of 2002 and M.A.C.M.A No.3648 of 2011 is against the award in O.P.No.191 of 2002 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Medak. A claim for compensation in both the cases were made for a sum of Rs.1 lakh consequent on the death of the persons-Gandigi Premdas and A.Ramesh. According to the claimants, who are the dependents, on 17-12-2001 the deceased and others were engaged as labourers by the owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.MEP 3028 and 3029 to fill the water in the tanker and they sat behind the Tanker. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor, it turned turtle and the deceased persons also fell down. The loaded tanker fell on the deceased persons, as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The deceased were also said to be students and they were said to be earning as labourers. The second respondent is the Insurance Company who filed the appeal contended that there is a violation of the conditions of the policy since Tractor and Trailer are not properly insured and even if there is an insurance it shall be used only for agricultural purpose. The deceased persons are unauthorised persons travelling in the said Tractor and Trailer and consequently there is no liability. The Tribunal below did not accept the contentions and granted compensation of Rs.90,000/-in O.P.No.189 of 2002 and Rs.80,000/-in O.P.No.191 of 2002. Challenging the said award, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation? POINT:- According to the contention of the counsel for the appellant, evidently, the deceased persons were travelling in the Tractor and Trailer and their claim that they were labourers is not correct and the vehicle shall be used only for agricultural purpose and the vehicle was put to commercial purpose and consequently the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Evidently, both the deceased persons are minors and illiterates and the claimants are also illiterate parents of the deceased persons. Evidently, both the deceased persons are minors and illiterates and the claimants are also illiterate parents of the deceased persons. In this case, it is to be mentioned that the deceased persons did not die due to the injuries received in a motor accident after the fall from the Tractor. If such is the case, then it can be definitely argued by the counsel for the Insurance Company that they are unauthorised persons and not covered by the risk. But, however, in this case, the injured persons have fallen from the Trailer. The incident of death or the cause of death was the subsequent fall of the water tanker on the deceased persons and consequently they cannot be said to be still travelling in the Tractor or Trailer. When they have fallen on the ground, their travel in the Tractor and Trailer is over and the cause of death was the fall of the tanker and at that stage they are third parties and evidently the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to cover the risk under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, taking into consideration the manner in which the incident is happened, I am of the opinion that the deceased persons are not travellers in the Tractor and Trailer and the cause of death was the fall of the tanker from the Tractor and Trailer after they have fallen. Consequently, the Insurance Company has to pay the amount and it cannot avoid the liability. There are no merits in both the appeals and appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. No costs.