(1.) THESE two appeals by the United India Insurance Company are directed against the award of the M. A. C. T. , Bagalakote, allowing the claim applications filed by one Akkawa (claimant in M. V. C. No. 34/2002) and one Neelawwa (claimant in M. V. C. No. 811/2001) and as the accident in question is one and the same, these two appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE case of the respective claimants is that on 21. 8. 2001, when they, along with several others, were travelling in the tractor-cum-trailer No. KA-28/t-1170 and 1171 on Bagalakote-Alamatti Road, the vehicle, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver concerned, turned turtle leading to the above named claimants suffering injuries along with many others, who were also in the said vehicle. The claim petitions filed by the claimants mentioned above came to be allowed and claimant Akkawa was awarded a sum of Rs. 75,500/-and the other claimant Neelawwa was awarded a sum of rs. 26,250/- by the M. A. C. T. as compensation, putting the liability on the appellant to satisfy the award amounts.
(3.) THE said order of the M. A. C. T. is called in question mainly on the ground that the tractor-cum-trailer, though insured with the appellant, the policy issued was one coming under the fanner's package and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation because the claimants were found travelling in the tractor-cum-trailer and the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes and fanner's policy did not cover the risk of any other persons except those mentioned in the policy itself. Therefore, the question of she insurance Company becoming liable will not arise. Another ground urged in the appeals is that, as the vehicle was used as a transport vehicle to carry the claimants as well as many others, the insured ought to have obtained necessary permit as required under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no such permit was obtained by the insured. The claimants and others, who were found travelling in the tractor-cum-trailer, were never the employees of the insured and, as such, the question of covering the risk of the claimants even under section 147 of the Act will not arise. It is on these grounds, the awards of the Tribunal are being assailed in these two appeals.