JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals, they are, (1) M. A. No. 263/97 (Shiv Prasad and Anr. v. Smt. Shyambai and Six Ors.), (2) M. A. No. 270/97 (Shiv Prasad and Anr. v. Parsadi and seven Ors., (3) M.A. No. 271/97 Shiv Prasad and Anr. v. Surendra Kumar and Anr., (4) M. A. No. 273/97 (Shiv Prasad and Anr. v. Gendan Singh and Anr.). These appeals are directed against the single award given by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Umaria (Shahdol) passed in Motor Accidents Claim Nos. 28/92, 29/92, 3/93 and 4/93. These claims arise out of single vehicular accident which occurred on 26-7-1992. The Motor Vehicle being registration No. 18/5152, was involved in this accident. It was a goods carrier. It was going from Umariya to Katni on the State High Way. Two persons died and others became injured. Claim Nos. 28 and 29 are by legal representatives of the deceased while claim Nos. 3 and 4/93 are by two of the injured persons. The appellant No. 1 Shiv Prasad was the driver of vehicle while appellant No. 2 Harish Kumar was the owner. Their case was that this vehicle, due to mechanical defect, became out of control and so was involved in the accident. United India Insurance Company is a party respondent. Its liability was exonerated by the Tribunal on the plea that the owner had violated an essential term of insurance by taking passengers in a goods vehicle. Taking up passengers in a goods vehicle is prohibited according to the terms of the insurance and so the Insurance Company was not liable to the injuries of these persons who were gratuitously taken as passengers. The Tribunal has found that 19 persons had been taken as passengers in the Truck and the owner of the Truck was a consenting party to this breach of term of insurance. The Truck was a goods carrier. So the Insurance Company was not liable and the owner and driver were liable for the injuries of the passengers as also for the death of passengers, to their legal representatives. The Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs. 65,000/- in claim case No. 28/92. On finding that the deceased must have been earning Rs. 30-40 per day and he was aged 40 years, interest @ 12% per annum was allowed from the date of petition. In claim case No. 29/92, Rs. The Tribunal allowed compensation of Rs. 65,000/- in claim case No. 28/92. On finding that the deceased must have been earning Rs. 30-40 per day and he was aged 40 years, interest @ 12% per annum was allowed from the date of petition. In claim case No. 29/92, Rs. 5,000/- was allowed as compensation. The claimants were allowed Rs. 65,000/- as compensation for the death of their predecessor. In claim Case Nos. 3 and 4, it was found that there was no permanent disability, but they had injuries. They were allowed Rs. 12,000/- each with interest @ 12% from the date of claim petition. 2. During the trial of the claimants, an interim relief of Rs. 25,000/- had been awarded against the Insurance Company in claim cases Nos. 28 and 29 of 1992. Since the insurance company was exonerated of liability this amount was ordered to be refunded to the Insurance Company by the claimants. Similarly, in claim case No. 4/93, Rs. 12,000/- was ordered to be refunded by the claimants to the Insurance Company, which he received as interim award. 3. In the appeal, the assertion of the owner and the driver of the Truck is that the vehicle was insured, that it was not with permission of the owner that passengers were taken on the Truck by the driver, that it has to be presumed that the direction given to the driver was that he will not take any passenger in the Truck, that it is for the Insurance Company to prove that the passengers had taken the consent of the owner and that this has not been proved. The burden on the insurance company remains un-discharged. It is also urged that even otherwise the claimants have stated and the witnesses have stated that insured or deceased had some goods of their own with them and since they were travelling with their goods they should be deemed to be authorised passengers whose presence in the vehicle with the goods was not a violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy. It is urged that the definition of goods given in Section 2(13) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is wide one and the goods need not be weighed full truck load or very heavy goods. The passengers had taken their rations or Kirana store with them. So, the argument is that the Insurance Company should have been held liable. It is urged that the definition of goods given in Section 2(13) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is wide one and the goods need not be weighed full truck load or very heavy goods. The passengers had taken their rations or Kirana store with them. So, the argument is that the Insurance Company should have been held liable. It is also argued that the compensation allowed is excessive. The assertion of the Insurance Company is that it was claimants' own plea that there were passengers in the vehicle and they were not travelling with the goods to be carried by the vehicle. The plea of the owner and driver was that they had taken load of 'Gitties', Stone Ballasta and others were only labourers on the Truck. This plea was contradictory to the plea of passengers. It was alleged in the F.I.R. itself that there were 19 passengers in the Truck. So there was clear violation of the policy of insurance. This was also a violation within the meaning of Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So, the Insurance Company could not be made liable. 4. The main issue which needs adjudication in these appeals is whether the liability of the Insurance Company has rightly been exempted. This will be dependent on the question whether the insured committed violation of a term of Insurance within the meaning of Section 149(2)(a)(1)(c) of 1988 Act. Prohibited user Under Section 149(2)(a)(1)(c) is as under :- "for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, "or..... 5. The question as to what, in law, is meant by breach of term of policy within the meaning of Section 149(2)(a), has been answered by the Apex Court in two recent judgments followed by a recent Division Bench decision of this Court. These are as under :- (i) Skandia Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kokila Ben Chandravadan, 1987 MPU 347 (SC) = AIR 1987 SC 1184 . The term involved in that case was that a licensed driver will drive the vehicle. Their Lordships said that this term has to be interpreted as meaning that the owner of the vehicle, that is insured, shall put the vehicle in charge of the licensed driver for driving. The term involved in that case was that a licensed driver will drive the vehicle. Their Lordships said that this term has to be interpreted as meaning that the owner of the vehicle, that is insured, shall put the vehicle in charge of the licensed driver for driving. Their Lordships said that if the insured puts the vehicle in charge of such licensed driver for driving and that driver, by his own negligent act, permits an unauthorised person to drive the vehicle while the driver is sitting by his side, it is not a breach of term of policy by the insured. The negligent act in such a case consists of the licensed driver permitting the unlicensed person to drive the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle had done everything in his power, according to the terms of the policy. Their Lordships said that breach of the term means a deliberate breach by the insured and that it will be seen on facts and circumstances of each case whether there was a breach of term. Their Lordships applied the mechanism of 'reading down' this provision regarding breach of term with an object to achieve that the legislation regarding insurance was a beneficial one for the benefit of those who are injured in road accidents. So their Lordships stated that the term of the Insurance Policy regarding licensed driver, will be interpreted to mean that the owner of the vehicle will not put the vehicle in charge of a unlicensed driver for the purpose of driving. (ii) In a recent case B.V. Nagraju v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 2054 , their Lordships were faced with slightly different situation. The vehicle was a goods carrier. It was insured as a goods carrier and as per one of the terms, it could not carry any passenger and was insured for six workmen and a driver as occupants. It was involved in accident. There were 8 workmen in the truck instead of six. The accident was that the truck was driven by the driver negligently into a building and the owner of the building claimed compensation for damages caused to the building. The insurance company took a plea that there was breach of term of the policy, as 8 persons had been taken on the vehicle instead of six. The accident was that the truck was driven by the driver negligently into a building and the owner of the building claimed compensation for damages caused to the building. The insurance company took a plea that there was breach of term of the policy, as 8 persons had been taken on the vehicle instead of six. Their Lordships said that in this case, the increased number of workmen travelling in the vehicle could not have increased the risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company regarding this accident. Their Lordships stated that merely lifting a person or two or even 3 by the driver or cleaner without the knowledge of the owner cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should know of the events and be denied indemnification. It was stated that the use of the vehicle is somewhat irregular, but it does not show fundamental breach in nature as to put an end to contract. (iii) In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of our High Court was faced with a similar question in Shankar Prasad v. Smt. Malti Devi and Ors., M.A. No. 949/96 decided on 11-4-1997. In this case, however, the deceased had hired the truck for carrying his goods of cloth to the weekly market in a particular Bazar on payment of Rs. 300/-. The driver was not available. The owner/hirer engaged a person who was duly licensed driver. That person was arranged by the deceased. The hirer travelled in truck for safety and security of his goods. On the way the truck turned turtle and the hirer died. The insurer disowned his liability as there was breach of term as the passenger could not be allowed in the Truck under the terms of policy. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to mechanical failure. But it was not shown that the owner had done everything to get the truck road worthy. The insurer was absolved from the liability by the Tribunal. It was held that deceased was a passenger and not in terms of contract of employment for hire. The driver had permitted 10-15 persons to travel in the vehicle. But it was not shown that the owner had done everything to get the truck road worthy. The insurer was absolved from the liability by the Tribunal. It was held that deceased was a passenger and not in terms of contract of employment for hire. The driver had permitted 10-15 persons to travel in the vehicle. A division bench of this Court considered the principles in the cases of Skandia Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and also in a number of other authorities, and observed that carrying of large number of passengers on hire was in breach of term of policy and a fundamental breach. It was held that the insurer was rightly absolved from the liability in the case. 6. In the appeals in hand, presently, there was evidence on record that 19 persons had been taken on the truck as passengers. We do not know if they had paid fares. The Tribunal had held that the passengers were being carried and that the vehicle was being used for this purpose. 7. In the pleadings raised by the claimant, in claim No. 28, it was asserted that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers and goods on payment of fare and that the deceased was returning with 'ration Galla' from the market by this vehicle. The plea of respondents 1 and 2 was that Jawahar, deceased, was taken in the truck so that he could help loading stone ballast in the truck to a particular address. His capacity was therefore only that of an employee of the owner of truck as a labourer. He was taken in the truck along with other labourers, so the Insurance Company should be liable. These respondents had denied that deceased Jawahar was carrying ration 'galla' in the truck. The plea of the insurance Company was that the deceased was taken as passenger on truck. (a) The insurance policy shows that carrying of one said driver, one cleaner and three labourers was permitted. 9. The finding of the Tribunal is clearly that there were about 19 passengers taken. 19 could not be even an extension of three labourers. It is not a case where one or two labourers might have been taken extra. Apparently, according to the claim petitions, these people were passengers in the goods vehicles. 10. 9. The finding of the Tribunal is clearly that there were about 19 passengers taken. 19 could not be even an extension of three labourers. It is not a case where one or two labourers might have been taken extra. Apparently, according to the claim petitions, these people were passengers in the goods vehicles. 10. The plea in claim No. 4 by the injured/claimant is that he and Surendra Kumar claimant had travelled in this vehicle as passengers to go to their village Hindori, but at a short distance, therefore, the truck struck against a tree, as the driver drove it very negligently. There were a number of other persons in the Truck and they were injured and some died. The pleadings of the claimants in these cases cannot be ignored. They clearly suggest that these people were taken as passengers and according to atleast one of them, the truck was being used for such purpose. The evidence on behalf of the owner of the Truck was that the truck was sent to collect stone ballast, for Surendra Kumar, one of the claimants. This is not the plea of the claimants. The evidence of the Truck owner and driver in this respect is false and is only concocted evidence. It was rightly discarded by the Tribunal. 11. From the pleadings and evidence, the clear inference is that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers. They were carrying their own goods which were not to be carried in the goods vehicle. The main purpose was not carrying of the goods, but was carrying of the passengers. It is only when the goods are carried that the hirer of the vehicle may travel in the goods vehicle or his employee may so travel and be still covered by risk under the policy. When the main purpose is carrying the passengers, the mere fact that the passenger carries some goods, belongings as some personal effects, it does not mean that he has hired the vehicle for carrying the goods. He would not be covered within the ambit of 'covered risk'. This had been specifically prohibited. It is not a case where the owner of the truck had done every thing in his power to abide by the terms of the policy. It appears that he was earning profits from the breach of the terms. He would not be covered within the ambit of 'covered risk'. This had been specifically prohibited. It is not a case where the owner of the truck had done every thing in his power to abide by the terms of the policy. It appears that he was earning profits from the breach of the terms. It is not a case where it can be said that he must be deemed to have directed his driver not to take any passengers. So there was breach of terms of policy committed by the insured in this case. This breach is within the scope of being 'fundamental' as communicated by the Supreme Court after reading down the meaning of 'breach of such term of insurance', as examined in the case of Skandia Insurance Company (supra). So the liability of the insurance Company has rightly been absolved. 12. As regards the extent of compensation, this Court finds that in all the four cases, it is extremely modest. Nothing can be argued against the justification of these quantums. The result is that the appeals fail and are dismissed. The awards are confirmed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.