JUDGMENT A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dewas in Claim Case No. 16 of 1976 dated 21st August, 1981, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 submitted a Claim Petition before the lower Tribunal on the allegations that in the intervening night of 11-3-1976 and 12-3-1976 deceased Devaji was travelling in tractor No. MPU-7093 attached with a trolly No. MPU-7176 belonging to the appellant No. 1 Sajjan Singh which was being used for transport of manure belonging to appellant No. 2 Saitansingh and was being driven by appellant No. 3 Bahadursingh. The vehicle was insured with respondent No. 6 the New India Assurance Company. While travelling on the aforesaid tractor and trolly, as a labourer for lifting the manure, the deceased fell from the tractor and was crushed under its wheels. The accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver Bahadursingh, appellant No. 3. In view of the age of the deceased and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 being dependants on the deceased, a claim for Rs. 50,000/- was made as compensation from the three appellants and respondent No. 6. 3. The claim was resisted by appellant No. 1 on the ground that the aforesaid tractor No. MPU-7093 was not involved in the accident at all. It was actually deputed for work of Block Development, Bagli and was in the custody of a regularly employed driver Devisingh. It was also averred that as Devi Singh has not been made a party, the petition is not tenable. It was denied that Bahadursingh was its driver and that he drove the tractor belonging to the appellant No. 1 at any time. The appellant Saitansingh denied the claim on the ground that he did not take the vehicle on hire from appellant No. 1 for transportation of manure. He also denied the fact that Devaji was engaged by him as a labourer for transporting the manure. Appellant No. 3 Bahadur Singh stated that he was never employed by appellant No. 1 on his tractor and he never transported the manure by the tractor as its driver, and that no accident was caused due to any rash or negligent act by him. 4. Appellant No. 3 Bahadur Singh stated that he was never employed by appellant No. 1 on his tractor and he never transported the manure by the tractor as its driver, and that no accident was caused due to any rash or negligent act by him. 4. On the aforesaid pleadings the learned Tribunal framed nine issues to decide the claim petition and held that Devaji died on account of the rash and negligent driving by Bahadursingh while working for appellant No. 2 Saitansingh. It also held that the tractor in question was given on hire to the Block Development Officer, Hatpiplya on the date of the accident, but it does not have any effect on the merits of the case. Devaji was not travelling free of charge on the trolly in question, but was employed by Saitansingh as a labourer. It also held that the Insurance Company is not liable for paying the compensation. Thereafter considering the evidence on record an award of Rs. 14,000/- was given against the three appellants. Hence this appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri Verrna strenuously argues that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the improper appreciation of the evidence. There is no evidence at all on record that the tractor belonging to appellant No. 1, was involved in the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of yjr driver. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 supports the finding of the learned Tribunal and the counsel for respondent No. 6 Shri Dhupar also supports the finding of the lower Tribunal on the ground that the Insurance Company has rightly been absolved of the liability to pay the compensation. 7. It is not disputed before me that the deceased died due to the injuries received by him and the injuries were caused due to being crushed under the wheels of a vehicle. Now, in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it has to be seen whether the lower Tribunal rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accident was caused due to the vehicle belonging to appellant No. 1 and being driven by appellant No. 3. 8. Now, in the light of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties it has to be seen whether the lower Tribunal rightly arrived at a conclusion that the accident was caused due to the vehicle belonging to appellant No. 1 and being driven by appellant No. 3. 8. A.W.7 Haritwal was the Station House Officer of Hatpiplya who has stated before the Court that he had investigated the case of the death of deceased Devaji and has registered an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of the investigation he had seized tractor Ferguson registration No. MPU-7093 and a trolly having number MPU-7176. Near the right drum of the wheel of the trolly red spots as of blood were found. The seizure memo is Ex. P-5. The Investigating Officer also had seized one safa from Saitansingh. 9. In this respect the statement of appellant Bahadursingh (N.W.S.1) is very important, who says in examination-in-chief that he did not drive the tractor and trolly belonging to appellant No. 1 and he also did not transport the manure. But the statement of Bahadursingh is self-contradictory. In para 2 of his statement he has stated that Sajjan Singh's tractor was driven by him and his brother had given it to him. He had driven the tractor for 15 to 20 days and sometime Devisingh was also driving the same tractor. He was doing the job of transporting stones in the bunding operation at Badi. He used to get his wages from Devisingh who is the younger brother of Sajjan Singh and Sajjan Singh had employed him on the tractor. He had a driving Dcence which was given for renewal to the younger brother of Sajjansingh. Sajjan Singh used to visit this witness occasionally and he had a talk with Sajjan Singh also about taking the tractor to a Muslim for repairs to which he had consented. At Kamlapur and Badi the work of the tractor was being looked after by Sajjan Singh's younger brother. The payment of rent was also being received by the younger brother of Sajjan Singh. The pay of Devisingh was also being paid by the younger brother of Sajjansingh. In para 4 of his statement he says that die tractor in question was in Badi and thereafter he says that it was in the sugar factory. The payment of rent was also being received by the younger brother of Sajjan Singh. The pay of Devisingh was also being paid by the younger brother of Sajjansingh. In para 4 of his statement he says that die tractor in question was in Badi and thereafter he says that it was in the sugar factory. He denies that Saitansingh had given him any work on the date of the accident. He further says that when the accident took place Devisingh was in the Indore Hospital and he was therefor two days prior to the date of the accident. 10. Bahadursingh (N.A.W.1) was confronted with his written statement wherein in para 1 he has admitted that on the date of the accident he was transporting the manure of Saitan Singh. He has further admitted that deceased Devaji used to remain with Saitan Singh usually and on 11-3-1976 when driver Bahadursingh was preparing the tractor for transporting the manure, at that time along with the labourers and Saitansingh, deceased Devaji also boarded the tractor for going to Budangaon, to his relative, and he was sitting in the vacant trolly. The deceased was drunk at the time of boarding the trolly and he cannot say where the deceased had gone after boarding the trolly because when the tractor started from Budangaon there were only the three labourers and Saitansingh. As such the statement given by this witness in the Court denying the involvement of the tractor at all in transporting manure and the presence of Devaji in the trolly stands falsified by the written statement of this witness. 11. Now, in the light of the statement of the driver if we exmamine the statements of the witnesses of the applicant we find that the learned lower Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that at the time of the accident the deceased was travelling in the trolly of the tractor of Sajjansingh which was being driven by appellant Bahadursingh. 12. Phoolibai (A.W.1) states that the deceased was her husband and Saitansingh had hired him as a labourer for transporting the manure and Saitansingh had also paid the labour charges. In the cross examination of this witness nothing has been elicited to show that she is stating a lie on this point. 12. Phoolibai (A.W.1) states that the deceased was her husband and Saitansingh had hired him as a labourer for transporting the manure and Saitansingh had also paid the labour charges. In the cross examination of this witness nothing has been elicited to show that she is stating a lie on this point. A.W.3 Jagdish also makes a similar statement and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness also because in cross-examination he has reaffirmed the statement made in the examination-in-chief. 13. A.W. 4 Brijlal states that he had gone as a labourer with Narayan for transporting the manure in the tractor. But he denies the presence of the deceased in the trolly. But when confronted with his affidavit wherein he had stated that Devaji also was in the tractor and that he had died due to the rash and negligent driving by Bahadursingh, he states that he does not know what was written in the affidavit. His statement in the Court is most unnatural because he states that he had slept in the tractor, therefore, he cannot say what happened. He is also not in a position to even state as to whether Devaji is alive or dead. 14. A.W. 5 Narayan in para 3 of his statement has admitted that Devaji was on the tractor which was being driven by Bahadursingh. Devaji did not return with them. Then he takes a somersault and states that Devaji was not sitting in the tractor which was being driven by Bahadursingh. When confronted with his statement in the Bagli Court wherein he had stated that he had seen Devaji sitting in the tractor driven by Bahadursingh, this witness had to admit that he had given such a statement in the Bagli Court. As such from the statement of this witness also it appears that the deceased was travelling in the tractor which was being driven by Bahadursingh for transporting manure. He has also admitted to have given statement in the Bagli Court that Saitansingh wag also with him. He further admits that the manure was dumped in the field of Saitansingh. He also admits that Bahadur Singh had told him that the manure has to be dumped in the field of Saitansingh. 15. Appellant Sajjansingh had denied the fact of giving the tractor to Saitansingh or engaging Bahadursingh as his driver. He further admits that the manure was dumped in the field of Saitansingh. He also admits that Bahadur Singh had told him that the manure has to be dumped in the field of Saitansingh. 15. Appellant Sajjansingh had denied the fact of giving the tractor to Saitansingh or engaging Bahadursingh as his driver. He further states that Devisingh had gone to Indore two or three days prior to the accident. But this fact stands falsified from the statement of A.W. 2 Rajendrasingh Sengar, who states that according to the record the tractor of Sajjan Singh had done the work on hire between 9-3-1976 to 11-3-1976 and the regular driver was Devisingh on that tractor and an amount of Rs. 495.00 was paid to Sajjan Singh. As such from the statement of this witness it follows that when Devisingh was away to Indore then it was Bahadursingh who was driving the tractor of Sajjan Singh. Reading the aforesaid statements with the statement of Bahadur Singh who has stated that the younger brother of Sajjansingh had engaged him as a driver on the tractor of Sajjan Singh and Sajjan Singh also used to meet him and had even asked him to take the tractor for repairs to a mechanic, it is manifest that at the time of the accident the tractor was being driven by Bahadursingh in the employment of Sajjan Singh. Now, the denial of Sajjan Singh about any knowledge in respect of the transportation of manure of Saitan Singh does not help the case of Sajjan Singh at all. It was for Sajjan Singh to explain as to in what circumstances the tractor was used for transporting the manure of Saitan Singh and how it was being driven by Bahadur Singh. 16. In the instant case from the aforesaid evidence it is manifest that the deceased died while travelling in the trolly attached with the tractor belonging to Sajjan Singh, which was being driven, at the relevant time, by Bahadursingh. 16. In the instant case from the aforesaid evidence it is manifest that the deceased died while travelling in the trolly attached with the tractor belonging to Sajjan Singh, which was being driven, at the relevant time, by Bahadursingh. It was, therefore, within the special knowledge of the tractor driver the circumstances under which the accident occurred Although in the written statement the driver has tried to give a suggestion that the deceased was drunk when he boarded the trolly and that he was a gratiitous passenger in the trolly and not a labourer, but in his statement before the Court he did not stick even to this suggestion and has come out with a story that the deceased never boarded his trolly and he never transported the manure of Saitansingh. The statement of this witness has been held to be untrue in the discussion in the preceding paragraphs. Therefore, it is clear that the driver has not explained the circumstances under which the accident took place. In such cases the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is clearly applicable and in absence of any explanation about the accident on the part of the driver the presumption has to be drawn that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion hereinbefore I agree with the finding of the learned lower Tribunal that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by Bahadur Singh, the driver of tractor and trolly belonging to appellant Sajjan Singh. From the aforesaid evidence it is also manifest that Saitansingh had taken the tractor and trolly from Sajjan Singh for transporting manure and the deceased was travelling as a labourer for transporting the manure of the tractor and trolly. Bahadursingh was not in the employment of Saitansingh and, therefore, Saitan Singh could not be held vicariously liable for the tortious act of Bahadursingh. It is the owner of the tractor and trolly who allowed the tractor and trolly to be driven by Bahadur Singh who has to be held vicariously liable for the tortious act of the driver. As such although the learned lower Tribunal has rightly held Bahadursingh and Sajjan. Singh liable for the compensation, Saitan Singh, however, cannot be held responsible for paying the compensation to the deceased. As such although the learned lower Tribunal has rightly held Bahadursingh and Sajjan. Singh liable for the compensation, Saitan Singh, however, cannot be held responsible for paying the compensation to the deceased. Although the deceased was working as an employee of Saitansingh, but Saitansingh was only a carrier of goods under a contract with the owner of the tractor and, therefore, as a result of the accident, if Saitan Singh would have expired, then also the owner of the tractor and trolly and the driver would have been responsible for paying Compensation for his death and for the same reason they are responsible for paying the compensation for the death of the deceased. 18. As regards the absolving of the Insurance Company, I do not agree with one of the reasons for absolving the Company from liability given by the lower Tribunal that the driver has not proved that he had a valid licence. It is a settled position of law that it is for the Insurance. Company to plead and prove that the driver was driving the vehicle without licence. However, I agree with the learned lower Tribunal for absolving the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground that the vehicle was being used against the policy conditions. The tractor and trolly were undisputedly insured only for agricultural purposes and it was not to be used for commercial purposes. In the instant case the tractor and trolly were manifestly being used for transporting the manure for Saitansingh for commercial purposes and, therefore, the vehicle being used in violation of the Insurance contract the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the. compensation. As such I agree with the finding of the lower Tribunal absolving the Insurance Company from liability. 19. In the result the appeal of appellant Saitansingh is allowed and the award given by the learned lower Tribunal against him holding him responsible for paying the compensation is set aside. However, the award against the appellants Nos. 1 and 3 Sajjansingh and Bahadur Singh is maintained. 20. There is also a cross-objection filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Nothing has been pointed out to me to show that the compensation awarded is unreasonable or inadequate. The award has been given in the year 1981 and the accident took place in the year 1976. 1 and 3 Sajjansingh and Bahadur Singh is maintained. 20. There is also a cross-objection filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Nothing has been pointed out to me to show that the compensation awarded is unreasonable or inadequate. The award has been given in the year 1981 and the accident took place in the year 1976. In view of the purchasing power of the money at the time of award, and the award given in comparative cases and the rate of interest prevailing at that time- it cannot be said that the award of the interest granted by the lower Tribunal is unreasonable and is on the lower side. Therefore, the cross-objection filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 is disallowed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.