Judgment :- PA. Mohammed, J. These two appeals arise from an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Quilon in O.P. (M.V.) No. 2000 of 1985. The claim petition was filed by the legal heirs of Daisy wife of Janias Julian who died in a motor accident on 12.9.1984 at about 3 pm at a place called 'Neendakara' on NH 47 claiming compensation of Rs.1 lakh. After the enquiry the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 81,700/- with 12% interest. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle were made liable to pay the compensation. The appellants in MF A No. 512 of 1990 are the claimants whereas the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1994 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The case of the appellants in MF ANo. 512 of 1990 is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. On the other hand, the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1990 pleads that the liability to pay the compensation shall be fastened on the insurer of the vehicle, who is the 16th respondent therein. 2. On the date of accident the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle tempo van KRO 4110. The case of the claimants was that the above vehicle was drive; u„ v Puvithran. the second respondent in the claim petition at the time of the accident and that the death was due to his rash and negligent driving. Therefore, they filed the claim petition claiming Rs. 1,700/- under Part I and Rs. 98,300/- under Part II as compensation. The insurer of the offending vehicle M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. the third respondent before the Tribunal, contended that the policy No. 42331/4/0/MV/206/84 was issued in the name of K. Peethambaran (owner) for a period from 26.2.1984 to 25.3.1985 as a private car and that the said policy was issued in respect of the vehicle bearing engine number D-236365 and chassis number 242539. It was also contended that Daisy who died in the accident was an unauthorised passenger in the said vehicle, and hence claimants were not eligible to claim compensation from the insurer even if there was a valid policy. The further case is that the owner of the vehicle failed to furnish the duly filled and signed claim form together with the driving licence of the driver and the R.C book for verification. The further case is that the owner of the vehicle failed to furnish the duly filled and signed claim form together with the driving licence of the driver and the R.C book for verification. Thus it was contended that the policy conditions have been violated by the owner of the vehicle. 3. In so far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, namely, Rs. 81,700/- the appellants in MFA No. 512 of 1990 pleaded that the Tribunal grossly erred in not allowing the entire compensation of Rs.1 lakh claimed by them. On the other hand, the owner of the offending vehicle, the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1990 attacked the award on the ground that the compensation awarded is excessive. The legal heirs of the deceased claimed an amount of Rs. 1,700/- for transport to hospital, damage to clothing, funeral expenses etc. under Part I. The Tribunal after the inquiry allowed the said claim in full. Under Part II they claimed an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 88,300/- for loss of earning power. PW.1, the first claimant, the husband of the deceased, deposed before the Tribunal that his deceased wife was aged 45 at the time of death and she was employed in Shaji Peeling Shed earning monthly income of Rs. 1,000/-. The Tribunal considered the claim for pain and suffering, permanent disability and loss of earning power together and awarded Rs. 80,000/- as the just and reasonable compensation. Under S.110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Claims Tribunal shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard hold an inquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation' which appears to it to be just. What is the meaning of the term'just'? It is derived from the Latin word 'Justus'. Though it has various meanings it is often governed by the context. In the context of award of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases, the word 'just' has been used in a very wide and comprehensive sense. The expression 'which appears to it to be just' confers wide discretion in the Tribunal in a matter of determination of compensation. However, the determination cannot be arbitrary and must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred and the compensation to be awarded. The expression 'which appears to it to be just' confers wide discretion in the Tribunal in a matter of determination of compensation. However, the determination cannot be arbitrary and must be based on certain data establishing reasonable nexus between the loss incurred and the compensation to be awarded. applying this test, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded in this case is arbitrary. In this context it has to be observed that unless sufficient materials are made available by the parties, it may not be possible for the Tribunal to determine the compensation in a correct and proper manner. Of course, the Tribunal while fixing the total compensation in this case did not actually decide the monthly loss of contribution to the dependents and the multiplier to be adopted for fixing the total loss of dependency. But this by itself will not make the determination arbitrary or unreasonable. All the above three heads were considered together and the Tribunal thus passed an award granting a total compensation of Rs. 88,300/- as against the claim of Rs.1 lakh. The only argument advanced before us is that the amount of compensation awarded shall be enhanced to Rs.1 lakh as claimed. But no materials are produced for such enhancement. Likewise no material is available to reduce the amount of compensation as argued on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle. Considering all the aspects of the case, we feel that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case. No justifiable reasons exist for interference with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We therefore, disincline either to enhance or decrease the amount of compensation awarded by it. In that view of the matter, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is confirmed. 4. The main contention advanced by the appellant in MFA No. 554 of 1990 is that since there was a valid policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident, the liability to indemnify the compensation was on the insurer. Ext. R1 is the policy dated 18.2.1984 issued by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Quilon in favour of the owner of the vehicle. That policy was marked through rw-1 who was the Assistant Divisional Manager of the insurance company. Ext. R1 is the policy dated 18.2.1984 issued by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Quilon in favour of the owner of the vehicle. That policy was marked through rw-1 who was the Assistant Divisional Manager of the insurance company. He deposed before the Tribunal that since R.C. particulars were not available, he obtained those particulars of the offending vehicle, tempo van KRQ 4110. Ext. R2 is a copy of the said particulars obtained from the R.T. Office. He further deposed that the above vehicle was insured as a private car. When the owner of the vehicle was examined as RW-2 he admitted in the cross-examination that on 18.8.1984 he had obtained a contract carriage permit for the vehicle. He further deposed that he had changed the permit as contract carriage for carrying 13 passengers with effect from 14.7.1984 and that information of the same had been passed on to the insurance company by the Bank. His case was that he paid the premium through the Bank for 13 passengers. In that situation, when the counsel for the insurer put a question to him whether he could produce any document to show that he had paid the premium, he did not give any answer at all. 5. The question to be decided is whether there was an insurance policy for the offending vehicle so as to operate the same as contract carriage authorising to carry 13 passengers. Under S.94 of the Act, no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter VIII. The requirements contemplated under the provisions are (i) there must be a valid, effective and enforceable policy and (ii) such policy must cover the use of the vehicle by the person using it all the time and place and the manner in which it is being used. That means insurance for one purpose would not enure for the other purposes. Consequently, a policy obtained for using the vehicle as a private car cannot be used for the purpose of using the vehicle as contract carriage carrying passengers for hire or reward. Ext. That means insurance for one purpose would not enure for the other purposes. Consequently, a policy obtained for using the vehicle as a private car cannot be used for the purpose of using the vehicle as contract carriage carrying passengers for hire or reward. Ext. R2 is the Registration particulars of B registrar of the offending vehicle No. KRQ 4110. It contains the following: No. C8-9575/84/Q: Class of vehicle altered as C/C w.e.f. 18.8.84 R2-9695/0/84. The seating capacity is enhanced from 7 in all to 13. in all w.e.f. 19.7.84. Thus, Ext. R2 would sufficiently establish that the class of the vehicle was altered as contract carriage with effect from 18.8.1984 and the seating capacity of the vehicle was enhanced from 7 to 13 with effect from 19.7.1984. The above particulars contained in Ext. R2 were obtained from the office of the Assistant Registering Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Quilon. In the aforesaid circumstances the owner of the vehicle is duty bound to obtain an insurance policy in respect of the vehicle for using it as a contract carriage for carrying passengers for hire or reward. In the instant case, the owner of the vehicle failed to produce the insurance policy for the abovesaid purpose and hence the requirements contemplated under S.46 are not complied with, 6. In Ext. R1 policy executed on 18.2.1984 the period of insurance is stated as from 26.2.1984 to 25.2.1985. It is specifically made clear in the policy that it is a comprehensive policy for private cars. The vehicle was insured on an estimated value of Rs. 92,000/-. An amount of Rs. 120/- was collected as the liability to public risk (TP). The case of the insurer is that it was a policy obtained by the owner in respect of the private car and later the vehicle was altered as contract carriage with effect from 18.8.1984. However, no additional insurance premium was paid in respect of the said vehicle for carrying passengers as contract carriage vehicle so as to cover the liability in respect of the passengers carried by the said vehicle. Ext. R1 policy though valid upto 25.2.1985 it came to an end since class of the vehicle was altered as contract carriage. No additional premium was paid for making the policy to cover the passengers carried by the vehicle. No new policy was taken after the class of vehicle was altered as contract carriage. Ext. R1 policy though valid upto 25.2.1985 it came to an end since class of the vehicle was altered as contract carriage. No additional premium was paid for making the policy to cover the passengers carried by the vehicle. No new policy was taken after the class of vehicle was altered as contract carriage. When the owner was examined in court, though he stated that a premium was paid through the Bank he did not produce any document evidencing such payment of premium. The case of the insurer is that owner has not only not paid any premium for the passengers carried by the vehicle but there was also violation of the policy conditions. Even assuming that Ext. R1 policy is subsisting during the relevant period there was total violation of the terms contained therein. One of the conditions contained in the policy is as follows: The policy does not cover use for hire or reward or for organised racing, pace making reliability trial speed-testing the carriage of goods (other than samples ) in connection with any trade or business or use for any purpose in connection with the Motor Trade, When the vehicle was admittedly used as contract carriage it was a violation of the above policy condition. This violation is apparent because Ext. R1 policy is applicable only to private cars. It is sufficiently established that the present private car had been used for carriage of passengers. 7. On behalf of the insurer it is pointed out that the provisions contained in S.96(2)(b)(i)(a) will apply to the facts of this case. Under the above provision the insurer is entitled to defend action under sub-s.(2) on the ground of non-liability to pay the compensation. Clause (b)(i)(a) of sub-s.(2) is as follows: "(b) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions; namely (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward." What is contemplated by the above provision is that there shall be a condition excluding the use of the vehicle for hire or reward where the vehicle is on the date of contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or, reward. This defence would not be open to insurers unless they are incorporated in the policy. The opening words in clause (b) "breach of a specified condition of the policy" makes it clear that the liability would depend upon the incorporation of the conditions in the policy. As pointed out above, in Ext. R1 policy this condition has been specified and hence this defence is no doubt available to the insurer. 8. What is pleaded is that there is no liability for the insurer to pay the compensation in view of the violation of the above conditions contained in Ext. R1 policy. We have already found that the terms contained in Ext. R1 policy have been violated, ie., that the vehicle in respect of which insurance policy was issued cannot be used to carry passengers for hire or reward. Later the owner has altered the class of the vehicle as contract carriage for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward. That again shows that the owner has violated the conditions of policy contained in Ext. R1. We have also found that the owner has not paid any additional premium or obtained a new policy after the vehicle has been classified as contract carriage vehicle. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the insurer in this regard are upheld. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice the decision of the Gujarat High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathibai Chaturbhuj (1982 ACt 153). That was a case where the insurance company disclaimed its liability to satisfy the awards on the ground that the vehicle in question was on the date of the contract of insurance, a vehicle not covered by a permit to carry passengers for hire or reward and that it was at the time of the accident stated to have been actually used to carry three passengers for hire or reward and that therefore the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the award made in favour of one of such passengers. After the detailed discussion, the court held that the case fell squarely within the ambit of S.96(2)(b)(i)(a) and that insurer was therefore not liable for the award passed in favour of the claimants and against the driver and the insured. After the detailed discussion, the court held that the case fell squarely within the ambit of S.96(2)(b)(i)(a) and that insurer was therefore not liable for the award passed in favour of the claimants and against the driver and the insured. However, the court found that the insurer in order to successfully disclaim his liability under S.96(2)(b)(i)(a) will have to establish the following: i) that on the date of the contract of insurance, the insured vehicle was expressly or implicitly not covered by a permit to carry any passenger for hire or reward, ii) that there was a specified condition in the policy which excluded the use of the insured vehicle for the carriage of any passenger for hire or reward, and iii) that the vehicle was, in fact, used in breach of such specified condition on the occasion giving rise to the claim by reason of the carriage of the passenger therein for hire or reward. The court further held that if all these facts are established by the insurer, he may succeed in avoiding the liability to satisfy the decree and he will not be liable to pay the amount awarded. We have absolutely no doubt that in the present case the insurer had sufficiently proved the abovesaid requirements. In short, we may observe that Exts. R1 and R2 produced by the insurer would sufficiently establish its case for disclaiming its liability. 10. In view of the discussion herein above, the contentions urged by the appellants in bom the cases are rejected and the appeals are dismissed.