B. A. KHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 61 of 1998 (Claim Case No. 53 of 1995), 62 of 1998 (C. C. No. 63 of 1995), 63 of 1998 (C. C. No. 54 of 1995), 64 of 1998 (C. C. No. 62 of 1995), 147 of 1998 (C. C. No. 97 of 1995), 128 of 1998 (C. C. No. 95 of 1995), 133 of 1998 (C. C. No. 99 of 1995), 245 of 1998 (C. C. No. 58 of 1995), 395 of 1998 (C. C. No. 58 of 1995); 247 of 1998 (C. C. No. 60 of 1995) and 397 of 1998 (C. C. No. 60 of 1995) filed by the non-applicant insurance company and M. A. Nos. 395 and 397 of 1998 by claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') arising out of the awards passed by Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, manawar, District Dhar, on 1. 10. 97 (C. C. Nos. 53, 63, 54 and 62 of 1995), 27. 11. 97 (C. C. Nos. 97, 95 and 99 of 1995) and 19. 1. 1998 (C. C. Nos. 58 and 60 of 1995 ). In all the appeals common questions of law and facts are involved and they arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by common judgment. ( 2 ) THE case of the claimants is that on 21. 1. 1995 the deceased Devabai, Sayribai and Kesarbai, Shantabai, Sagribai, Velkibai, Rukhadiya, Vagribai, etc. , were engaged as labourers by the driver respondent-non-applicant Tetu Singh for unloading the truck No. JG 17-T-3839 belonging to the respondent-non-applicant Ghulam Mohd. and insured with appellant-non-applicant. The respondent Tetu Singh drove this truck rashly and negligently. It left the road and turned turtle in a pit, as a result of which devabai and Sayribai died on the spot and soma alias Somlu, Vagribai, Velkibai, shantabai, Gorabai and Kesarbai sustained injuries and became permanently disabled. They filed above mentioned claim cases seeking compensation. The respondents, owner and driver, did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. The appellant insurance company resisted the claim and, inter alia, pleaded that the deceased and the injured forcibly boarded the truck. They were gratuitous passengers and were not covered under the insurance policy. They filed above mentioned claim cases seeking compensation. The respondents, owner and driver, did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. The appellant insurance company resisted the claim and, inter alia, pleaded that the deceased and the injured forcibly boarded the truck. They were gratuitous passengers and were not covered under the insurance policy. The owner used the goods vehicle as public service vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal after appreciation of evidenceproduced by both sides held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent driver Tetu Singh, as a result of which devabai and Sayribai died and the other claimants were injured. It held that the deceased and injured persons were engaged by the driver as labourers on the truck, therefore, they were covered under the insurance policy and the appellant insurance company was liable to pay compensation. It also held that if it was assumed that the deceased and the injured were not engaged as labourers, even then the appellant insurance company was liable to pay compensation as the breach of the condition of the insurance policy was committed by the driver and not by the owner. The insurance company has challenged this finding in M. A. Nos. 147, 61, 62, 63, 64, 128, 133, 245 and 247 of 1998 and Amar singh and Kesarbai have filed M. A. Nos. 395 and 397 of 1998 for enhancement of compensation amount. ( 3 ) MR. Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, submitted that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased and injured persons were engaged by the owner of the truck as labourers. In fact they were travelling as gratuitous passengers and their risk was not covered by insurance policy. The owner committed breach of the condition of the policy, therefore, the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay compensation, the learned Tribunal committed error in holding the appellant liable to pay the compensation. Mr, Rajpal and Mr. Sunil jain, learned counsel for the respondents claimants, supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. It has come in the evidence of Vagribai, CW 2, Sagribai, CW 3, shantabai, CW 4, Somaji, CW 5 (C. C. Nos. Mr, Rajpal and Mr. Sunil jain, learned counsel for the respondents claimants, supported the impugned award. ( 4 ) WE have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides and perused the record. It has come in the evidence of Vagribai, CW 2, Sagribai, CW 3, shantabai, CW 4, Somaji, CW 5 (C. C. Nos. 53, 63, 54 and 62 of 1995), Balibai, cw 2, Rukhadiya, CW 3, Ganesh, CW 4 (C. C. Nos. 95 and 99 of 1995) and Kesarbai, CW 2 (C. C. Nos. 58 and 60 of 1995)that the truck was loaded with cement bags and they were engaged by the driver of the truck for unloading the same. They admitted in cross examination that they occupied this truck at Balvari. It is true that vagribai admitted in cross-examination that the labourers who load the truck also go with the truck for unloading. On the basis of this, it cannot be held that the injured could not be engaged for unloading the truck at Dhar. She denied the suggestion that she was not engaged on the truck. The appellant did not lead any evidence in rebuttal. In view of this, there appears no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these witnesses. In our opinion, the Tribunal rightly put reliance on the unrebutted testimony of these witnesses and held that they were engaged by the driver for unloading the truck. It is settled that the onus of proving breach of the terms and conditions of the policy is on the insurance company. The appellant failed to discharge its burden. It did not lead evidence to prove that the injured and deceased persons forcibly occupied the truck and they were gratuitous passengers. For arguments sake, if it is assumed that the deceased and injured persons were allowed by the driver to travel in the truck and thereby the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated, even then the insurance company could not be exonerated from its liability to indemnify the insured, as the breach was committed by the driver and not by the owner himself. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be absolved from its liability of payment of compensation. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not be absolved from its liability of payment of compensation. ( 5 ) SUBHASH Gupta, NAW 1, (C. C. No. 58 of 1995), the witness of the appellant insurance company, stated that according to the insurance policy five labourers and one cleaner could travel in the truck. If the driver engaged more than 5 labourers, without the knowledge of the owner, for unloading the truck, it cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner could be denied indemnification and the insurance company could be absolved from its liability. [see B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC)]. ( 6 ) UNDER such circumstances, in our opinion, the learned Tribunal rightly held the appellant liable to pay compensation along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. In view of above, these appeals M. A. Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, 147, 128, 133, 245 and 247 of 1998 filed by insurance company have no substance and they deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. M. A. No. 395 of 1998 (C. C. No. 58 of 1995) ( 7 ) THE claimants father and mother filed claim Case No. 58 of 1995 seeking compensation of Rs. 5,40,000 for the death of their daughter Sayribai in the above accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75,000. The claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount. It has come in the evidence of Amar Singh that the age of sayribai was 20 years and she was earning rs. 30 per day by working as labourer. The Tribunal fixed the yearly earning of sayribai at Rs. 5,000 and applied multiplier of 15 and awarded Rs. 75,000 as compensation. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation does not appear to be on lower side. Even if we take monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 900 as argued by learned counsel the amount of compensation would be the same. On deduction of 1/3rd for the living expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 600 per month and yearly Rs. 7,200. Looking to the age of her father Amar Singh and mother which was 45 and 40 years respectively and the possibility of her getting married, multiplier of 10 would be selected. On deduction of 1/3rd for the living expenses of the deceased, the dependency would come to Rs. 600 per month and yearly Rs. 7,200. Looking to the age of her father Amar Singh and mother which was 45 and 40 years respectively and the possibility of her getting married, multiplier of 10 would be selected. On multiplying it with the multiplicand, the amount would come to (Rs. 7,200 x 10) = Rs. 72,000. Thus, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable and fair and does not call for interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. M. A. No. 397 of 1998 (C. C. No. 60 of 1995) ( 8 ) THIS appeal has been filed by the claimant Kesarbai for seeking compensation of Rs. 4,32,000 for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,000. It was argued that in view of the injuries suffered by the appellant Kesarbai, the amount of compensation of Rs. 21,000 is on very lower side and it should be enhanced. Kesarbai deposed that due to accident she sustained injuries on her mouth and neck. Her hip was fractured and teeth were broken. But she did not summon the doctor who had treated her. It is true that dr. Arvind Kumar, CW 2, deposed that there was fracture of her left jaw. Her teeth of upper and lower jaws had set properly. She had some difficulty in chewing on left side and could not eat hard things. There was some swelling on left side of her mouth and as such she had aesthetic deformity on her face. But Dr. Arvind kumar examined the claimant on 15. 11. 97, two years after the accident, therefore, the argument that it could not be proved that it was the result of the injuries sustained in the accident, cannot be said to be without substance. Even otherwise, the Tribunal considered the evidence on record. The tribunal doubted the genuineness of the cash memos Exhs. P-10 to P-26 as she did not produce the prescriptions of the doctor. Under such circumstances, it allowed only Rs. 1,000 for treatment and in all rs. 20,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. In view of the material on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unfair and unreasonable. In our opinion, no interference is called for. Under such circumstances, it allowed only Rs. 1,000 for treatment and in all rs. 20,000 as compensation for the injuries sustained by her. In view of the material on record, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unfair and unreasonable. In our opinion, no interference is called for. Therefore, this appeal is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed. .