ORDER : 1. These appeals have been filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved with the common award dated 26.02.2022 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baihar, Distt. Balaghat in MACC No.07/2019 and MACC No.08/2019, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.10,94,464/- in MACC No.07/2019 and Rs.14,33,152/- in MACC No.08/2019, with interest from the dated of filing of petition till realization to the claimants by way of compensation on account of death of Sarvan Markam and Chhari Bai in motor accident which allegedly took place on 04.11.2018. 2. In M.A. No. 2347/2022 it is alleged that deceased Sarwan Markam was travelling in pick up van CG-09-B-1547 which was being driven by respondent Praveen Ramtake negligently. It was owned by the respondent Namrata Agrawal and insured by the appellant/insurance company. Due to negligent driving, it overturned and consequently deceased sustained injuries and died. 3. In MA No. 2347/2022, claimant filed a claim petition that deceased Chhari Bai was walking on the road then the driver of that vehicle bearing registration No. CG-09-B-1547, namely, Praveen Ramteke was driving the vehicle at high speed and negligently and then the vehicle overturned then deceased Chhari Bai sustained injuries and died. 4. Claimants of both deceased Chhari Bai and Sarvan Markam filed claim petitions for seeking compensation against the owner, driver and insurance company. 5. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle denied and stated that no accident has been caused by them. They pleaded that offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company. So they are not liable for compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant (in both appeals) denied the allegation and taken defence that driver and owner, breaches the term and policy of the insurance company and deceased were travelling in pick up van as a gratuitous passengers. Offending vehicle was registered as a transport vehicle and it has capacity for travelling of only two persons driver and helper. It was not for carrying passengers, so it is a breach of insurance policy so insurance company is not liable. 7. Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence and thereafter, claim petitions of the claimants were partially accepted and awarded the compensation. 8. It was not for carrying passengers, so it is a breach of insurance policy so insurance company is not liable. 7. Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence and thereafter, claim petitions of the claimants were partially accepted and awarded the compensation. 8. Being aggrieved by the impugned award appellant/insurance company filed these appeals on ground that offending vehicle was insured as a transport vehicle and not for carrying passengers. Both the deceased were travelling in the vehicle as passengers in offending vehicle. It had a capacity of carrying only two persons, driver and helper and deceased was not a helper, so insurance company prays for exoneration from their liability. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants in both the appeals submitted that Tribunal passed impugned award after due appreciation of evidence that came on record which requires no interference and pray for rejection of this appeal. 10. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that deceased were travelling as passengers in the offending vehicle. In MACC No. 07/2019, P.W. 1 Pandu Markam stated in evidence in Para No. 1 by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 that his son Sarvan Markam was returning from Damoh market to his village Kudekasa in the said pick van which was being driven by the driver of the offending vehicle who was driving it rashly and negligently and overturned the vehicle, due to that his son Sarvan Markam received injuries and thereafter, he died. P.W. 1 Pandu Markam in his cross-examination in Para 7 stated which is as under :- ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd nq?kZVukxzLr okgu fidvi Øekad lh-th- 09 ch 1547 esa xkao ds vU; yksx Hkh cSBs FksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd nq?kZVukxzLr okgu esa esjs iq= ds vfrfjDr 15 ls 20 yksx cSBs gq, FksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd neksg vkSj gekjs xkao ds chp pSuMhg ds taxy esa okgu iyVus ls mDr nq?kZVuk ?kVh FkhA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd mlh nkSjku okgu ds iyVus ds dkj.k pkjh ckbZ vkSj esjk iq= ncdj ej x, FksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd okgu esa cSBs vU; 15&20 yksxksa dks pksV yxus ds dkj.k lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz cSgj ys tk;k x;k FkkA** 12. Claimant of MACC No.08/19, P.W. 2 Aghan Singh Meravi stated in cross-examination in Para 7 which is as under :- ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad dks esjh iRuh pkjh ckbZ vkSj ik.Mq dk iq= ljou rFkk xkao ds vU; 15&20 yksx xzke neksg ls cktkj djds ykSVrs nkSjku okgu ds iyV tkus ls mlds uhps nc tkus ds dkj.k nksuksa dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd nq?kZVuk dkfjr okgu fidvi ds iyV tkus ds dkj.k cSBs xkao ds vU; yksxksa dks pksV vk tkus ds dkj.k mUgsa lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsanz cSgj ysdj x, FksA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd mDr nq?kZVuk pSuMhg ds taxy ds lehi okgu fidvi ds iyV tkus ds dkj.k gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs xkao ds ykyflag firk louq }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ,&1 ntZ djkbZ xbZ FkhA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd lk{kh ykyflag }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa mYys[k fd;k x;k Fkk fd esjh iRuh pkjh ckbZ] ik.Mq dk iq= ljou vkSj xkao ds vU; 15&20 yksx okgu fidvi ls cktkj djds fdjk, ij ysdj okil ykSVrs oDr nq?kZVuk gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izdj.k esa izLrqr vafre izfrosnu izn'kZ ,u ,&1 esa bl ckr dk banzkt gS fd fidvi okgu ds iyVus ls esjh iRuh pkjh ckbZ vkSj ik.Mw dk iq= ljou dh e`R;q dkfjr gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd izn'kZ ,u , 1 esa bl ckr dk mYys[k gS fd fidvi okgu iyVus ls xkao ds 15&20 yksx ?kk;y gq, FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs }kjk izdj.k esa e`frdk dh vk; ds laca/k esa dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugh fd;k x;k gSA** 13. So in pursuance of the evidence of P.W. 1 Pandu Markam in MACC No. 07/2019 and P.W. 2 Aghan Singh in MACC No. 08/2019, it is clear that both the deceased were sitting in the offending vehicle and there is no evidence that they were labourers in the offending vehicle. In pursuance of the evidence and document of the criminal record, it is clear that they were travelling as a passengers in the offending vehicle. 14. In pursuance of the evidence and document of the criminal record, it is clear that they were travelling as a passengers in the offending vehicle. 14. Eye witness P.W. 3 Mantu Singh Parte also stated in cross-examination, in para No. 3 that it is true that deceased Chhari Bai and Sarvan Markam and all other injured were in the offending vehicle and witness of the insurance company i.e. D.W. 1 Sumit Kumar Soni stated that offending vehicle was goods carrying vehicle and it has sitting capacity of only two persons, driver and helper and witness of the insurance company i.e. D.W. 2 Lal Singh Rahangdale stated in his evidence that offending vehicle was goods carrying vehicle and insurance company had not taken premium of passengers. 15. So considering the evidence adduced by the claimants, it is clear that deceased were travelling as passengers and they were not travelling as a labourers. 16. So in the considered opinion of this Court that Tribunal has committed serious error that Sarvan Markam was travelling as a helper in the offending vehicle and also committed error that Chhari Bai met with accident when she was walking on the road. 17. So in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the deceased were tavelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers and in view of the matter it is found that appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 18. Claimants will be entitled to recover the awarded compensation only from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle who shall jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 19. In above terms, appeal is disposed of.