JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the award dated 27.2.1991 in Claim Case No. 101/90 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni, awarding compensation of Rs. 45,000/- to respondent No.1 Pillu and Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No.2 Pankhi Bai, under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). The petition for claim was filed by claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in which it was averred that they were travelling on 28.8.1986 by Matador bearing registration No. CIK 9409 from village Bhauma to Seoni. It is not disputed that the said vehicle was driven by respondent No.3 Manjoor Khan and was owned by respondent No.4 Mohd. Arif. The appellant is admittedly the insurer of said vehicle. The claimants further averred that, on account of rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by respondent No.1, the same dashed against a tree and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 sustained injuries. They averred that they were travelling as passengers by Matador. Total claim of Rs. 1,70,500/- was preferred. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the owner and driver of the said vehicle in their joint written statement denied the averments as above. They denied that the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling by Matador as passengers. It was averred that on account of mechanical defect, the vehicle had gone out of control of driver respondent No.3 Manjoor Khan and dashed against the tree. Therefore, they denied their liability to pay compensation. The appellant/insurer generally resisted the claim petition and filed a reply of general denial to the averments of claim petition. The learned tribunal held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, in which the claimant/respondent No. 1 Pillu suffered partial-permanent disability, while claimant/respondent No.2 Pankhi Bai suffered simple injuries. After assessing damages, award of Rs. 45,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1 Pillu and Rs. 2,000/- in favour of respondent No.2 Pankhi Bai was granted, as against respondents Nos. 3, 4, the driver and owner respectively and also against appellant, the insurer of the offending vehicle, who were made jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of award with interest @ 12% per annum. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the c1aimants/ respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling in the offending vehicle as fare paying passengers, as is clear from their own evidence. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the c1aimants/ respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling in the offending vehicle as fare paying passengers, as is clear from their own evidence. It is further stated that the policy document Ex. D-l is placed on record, which indicates that the vehicle was a Commercial Goods Vehicle and was being plied under 'Public Carrier Permit'. The terms of policy specified that risk of passengers for hire reward was not covered. It was, therefore, submitted that, since the c1aimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling by the offending vehicle as fare paying passengers and their risk was not covered under the policy and therefore the insurer/appellant could not be made liable for payment of amount of award. Learned counsel for appellant relied upon Mallawwa and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (1999 ACJ 1). Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, however, submitted that the Act being beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of the claimants, appellant/insurer cannot be exonerated from liability as no specific plea in defence was raised by it before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 relying upon the ratio of judgment in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilahen Chandravadan and others, ( AIR 1987 SC 1184 ) submitted that the appellant/insurer would be liable, as there was no breach of terms of policy by the owner. The questions which are required to be considered in -the -instant appeal are, as to whether there was breach of terms of policy and as to whether the appellant/insurer is liable to pay compensation as saddled by the Tribunal? It is clear from the insurance policy Ex. D-1 that the offending vehicle was a Commercial Vehicle. It was a Goods Carrying Matador with licence carrying capacity of 3 tons. The driver and conductor alone were to be carried in the vehicle. The terms of policy further indicate that the risk was not covered on the use of said vehicle for conveyance of passengers for hire reward. From the evidence on record and statement of Pillu (A W 3) it is established that the claimants were travelling in the said vehicle after paying fare. In view of above, it is clear that the claimants/respondents. Nos. 1 and 2 were fare paying passengers. From the evidence on record and statement of Pillu (A W 3) it is established that the claimants were travelling in the said vehicle after paying fare. In view of above, it is clear that the claimants/respondents. Nos. 1 and 2 were fare paying passengers. In view of the admitted position as above, there is no doubt that there was breach of terms of policy, inasmuch as, the vehicle was carrying fare paying passengers. It is also noticed that the owner/respondent No.4 in his joint written statement filed by him alongwith driver respondent No.3 had totally denied that claimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were travelling by the offending vehicle. However, the denial as above is fully falsified by the evidence placed on record by claimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It may be noticed that the owner of the offending vehicle has not stepped into the witness box to state on oath in support or reply filed by him. Thus, the owner has neither properly averred, nor proved that passengers were permitted to travel in the offending vehicle, despite his instructions to the contrary. In other words, the owner of the vehicle has neither specifically averred nor established that he was not guilty of breach of terms of policy. In the above circumstances of the case, it can only be presumed that there was a breach of terms of policy by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In view of above, the ratio of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for claimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 would not be of any assistance in the instant case. In the said case, the owner of the vehicle had handed over his vehicle to a licensed driver, who in turn handed it over to a person who was not having a driving licence. When the said person was driving the vehicle the accident had occurred. In the foregoing circumstances of the said case, it was observed that there was no breach of terms of policy by the owner/insured. As noticed above, the factual situation in the instant case, however, is entirely different and, therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the owner did not commit any breach of policy conditions, cannot be accepted. As noticed above, the factual situation in the instant case, however, is entirely different and, therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that the owner did not commit any breach of policy conditions, cannot be accepted. As already noticed, since the fare paying passengers were travelling in the offending vehicle, there was breach of terms of policy and in view of the ratio in Mallawwa and others (supra), the insurer/appellant could not be held liable for payment of amount of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award as against the appellant shall stand set aside. If any amount has been deposited by the appellant towards the awarded amount it shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner respondent No.4. The claimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to recover the awarded amount from respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as has been directed by the Tribunal. The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.