ORDER
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.
1. These appeals have been filed by the second respondent-insurer in O.Ps 87, 89 and 90 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Court, Nellore, against the common order passed on 25th October, 1990.
2. Posini Venkaiah, Doddala Seshamma and Doddala Tirupalu, doing business in vegetables and milk, were travelling with their vegetable bags in tractor-trailer AAN 2204 and AAN 2335 on 7-2-1988 from their village Chenchuganipalem to Kavali after paying fare and freight charges. The tractor-trailer met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of Posini Venkaiah and Doddala Seshamma and injuries to Doddala Tirupalu. The dependants of the two deceased persons and the injured filed the above O.Ps separately claiming compensation. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 67,000/- to the claimants in O.P.No. 87 of 1988, Rs. 79,500/- to the claimants in O.P.No. 90 of 1988 and Rs. 15,000/- to the claimant in O.P.No. 89 of 1988. The owner and insurer were ordered jointly and severally to pay the compensation.
3. There is abundant evidence to establish the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer and this is indisputable. The victims of the accident were business persons dealing in vegetables. They were travelling in the tractor-trailer along with their bags of vegetables from their village to Kavali for marketing after paying fare and freight charges. These facts were spoken to by the serviving injured victim of the accident and they were also mentioned in Ex. A-1, a certified copy of FIR registered in respect of the accident. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the victims of the accident were taking their vegetable bags in the tractor-trailer to market at Kavali after paying freight charges.
4. Learned counsel for the insurer contended that carrying the vegetable bags in the tractor-trailer by the victims of the accident cannot be considered as owners accompanying with their goods. He relied on a decision of this court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited v. Bondili Sitharam Singh and Ors. . Admittedly, the decision relied upon does not give the quantity of packages that were carried by the deceased therein. On the facts and circumstances of that case, the packages were not considered as goods. Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 defines ‘goods’ which reads:
“goods” includes live-stock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.”
In the instant case, victims of the accident, doing business in vegetables, were taking their bags of vegetables to Kavali for marketing. Considering the background of the parties and the purpose for which the bags of the vegetables were transported, they cannot be considered as small packages amounting to luggage or personal effects of the passengers. I am of the opinion that the bags of vegetables carried by them in the tractor-trailer have to be viewed as goods only and that the victims of the accident were accompanying with their goods. Hence, I do not find any merit in this plea of insurer-appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the insurer submitted that carrying the goods accompanied with their owners in the tractor-trailer was in violation of the permit issued by the concerned authority and also specific conditions of the insurance policy issued by them in respect of the vehicle. Ex.B-1, a xerox copy of the alleged Private Carrier Permit issued under Rule 208(vi) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1964, was neither attested as true copy nor produced from the concerned office where the record in respect of the vehicle is maintained. The truth of the said document was denied and its marking was objected to. There is no explanation for non-production of the original document or a certified copy of it Therefore, it cannot be considered as evidence to establish the carrier permit issued in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. Ex.B-l-A is an attested true copy of extract of ‘B’ Register regarding accident vehicle maintained at the office of Regional Transport Authority, Nellore. This was produced by and marked through R.W., 2 an official working in the office of Road Transport Authority, Nellore. Ex.B-1-A establishes the fact that the tractor-trailer Was permitted to carry all agricultural goods and it was further permitted to be used in combination with trailer for commercial purposes. Therefore, carrying the vegetable bags accompanied by their owners i.e. victims of the accident in the tractor is not in contravention of the permit issued in respect of tractor. Ex.B-2 is the policy issued by the insured on 15-10-1987 in respect of tractor-trailer. Commercial vehicles clause is part of Ex.B-2. If really the tractor-trailer was not permitted for commercial purposes in respect of agricultural goods, the said clause would not have been made part of Ex.B-2. Ex.B-3, a portion of Ex.B-2, detailing limitation as to use reads:
“Use for Agricultural & forestry purpose: This Police does not cover.
1. Use for racing pacemaking reliability trial or speed testing.
2. Use for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward.
3. Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted bylaw.”
There is absolutely no evidence that any of the above limitations as to use was violated in this case. No body could say that the vegetable bags carried in the tractor by the victims of the accident were not agricultural goods. It is quite apparent from the evidence that the victims of the accident were not carried as passengers but they accompanied with their goods in the tractor by paying fare and freight charges. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the tractor was used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward.
6. Admittedly, the compensation awarded in these matters is not in excess of statutory liability. To avoid the said liability, the defences available to the insurer shall be only as specified under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This view of mine finds support in the decisions of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Jugal Kishore and Ors., 1988 ACJ 270, and Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1184.
7. From the aforesaid discussion, it is quite apparent that neither any specified condition of the policy nor any condition of the permit were breached by the insured to enable the insurer to avoid payment of compensation to the claimants under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
8. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.