JUDGMENT 1. - All these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here-in-after called in short 'the Act') are directed against the common award dated 31.3.1995 the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (here-in-after referred to in short 'the Tribunal') and common questions of facts and law are involved in these appeals, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment: 2. The relevant facts in short are that on 7.1.1992, 5-6 men and 10/11 women were going from Suti to Beri in a trolly attached to tractor No. RRD 6214 to pay condolences. It was being driven by Rewati who was also the owner of the tractor. The tractor was insured with the appellant. When it reached in between village Lulhara and Dehra Mod.on the National Highway, it turned turtle at about 12.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving on the part of its driver. The persons travelling in the trolly sustained injuries out of whom Pitam @ Pitamber, Diwani, Jugli and Premwati succumbed to the injuries and in all 13 claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal which were consolidated vide order dated 2.2.1994. After framing of necessary issues stemming from the pleadings of the parties and recording of evidence produced on both the sides and hearing the parties, the claim petitions were decided by a common judgment and award on 31.3.1995. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award has preferred 13 appeals and two appeals have been filed on behalf of the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. The Claim Cases No. 41/92, 73/92, 74/92 and 75/92 have been filed by the heirs and dependents of deceased Pitam @ Pitamber, Mst. Diwani wife of Prahlad. Mst. Jugali wife of Hakim Singh and Premwati wife of Sahab Singh respectively. 4. In claim case No. 41/92 it has been alleged that Pitam @ Pitamber was 35 years of age and was engaged in agriculture at the time of his death in the accident. He had 50 Bighas of land in his Khatedari and was earning Rs. 48,000/- p.a. A sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- has been claimed as compensation on account of his death. In Claim Case No. 73/92 it is alleged that Mst. He had 50 Bighas of land in his Khatedari and was earning Rs. 48,000/- p.a. A sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- has been claimed as compensation on account of his death. In Claim Case No. 73/92 it is alleged that Mst. Diwani wife of Prahlad was 45 years of age and was hail and hearty at the time of her death in the accident. She was earning Rs. 700/- p.m. A sum of Rs. 40,55,000/- has been claimed as compensation on account of her death. In Claim Case No. 74/92 it is alleged that Mst. Jugali wife of Hakim Singh was 40 years of age and was quite healthy at the time of her death in the accident. She was likely to survive upto the age of 90-100 years and she was earning Rs. 2,000/- p.m. A sum of Rs. 10,56,000/- has been claimed as compensation on account of her death. In Claim Case No. 75/92 it is alleged that Mst. Premwati wife of Sahab Singh was 45 years, of age and was quite healthy at the time of her death in the accident. She was earning Rs. 600/- p.m. and was likely to survive upto 90 years of age. A sum of Rs. 3,52,000/- has been claimed as compensation on account of her death. 5. The other claim cases being Claim Case Nos. 42/92, 67/92, 68/92, 69/92, 70/92, 71/92, 72/92, 76/92 and 77/92 have been filed by the injured Vijairani aged 45 years, Keshmati aged 45 years, Shanti aged 50 years, Kishan Pyari 40 years, Rajjo aged 40 years, Rajo @ Rajwanti aged 35 years, Somoti aged 50 years, Ramvati aged 40 years and Angoori Devi aged 45 years respectively. All these appellants are alleged to have received several injuries and it is alleged that each of them was earning Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been claimed in each of these cases as compensation on account of injuries sustained by each of them in the accident. 6. The Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Rewati who was the driver and owner of the tractor and the said tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company. The Tribunal has further held the driver and owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. The Tribunal has further held the driver and owner and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,15,000/- as compensation in claim case No. 41/92, Rs. 18,000/- in Claim Case No. 42/92, Rs. 8,000/- in Claim Case No. 67/92, Rs. 14,000/- in Claim Case No. 68/92, Rs. 10,000/- in Claim Case No. 69/92, Rs. 2,000/- in Claim Case No. 70/92, Rs. 17,000/- in Claim Case No. 71/92, Rs. 11,000/- in Claim Case No. 72/92, Rs. 57,000/- in Claim Case Nos. 73/92 and 74/92, Rs. 71,000/- in Claim Case No. 75/92 and Rs. 13,000/- in Claim Case Nos. 76/92 and 77/92 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of realisation. 7. The only contention in the appeals filed on behalf of the appellant insurance company is that the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of amount of compensation as awarded in all these cases. In this regard it has been submitted that the tractor was insured with the appellant for agricultural purposes only and not for carrying passengers in its trolly for hire or reward or gratuitously. Reliance has been placed on the case of Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh & Ors. v. Phoolibai & Ors., reported in 1993 ACJ 586 , Bhoi Vanaji Dhulaji & another v. Patel Shivabhai Kashibhai & others, reported in 1981 ACJ 107 (Guj.) , New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors., reported in 2003(1) SBR 534 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy & Ors. etc. etc., reported in 2003(1) WLC (SC) Civil 283 . 8. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any authority to the contrary. They have simply submitted that the claimants are entitled to compensation and if the insurance company is not liable to make payment of the compensation, the driver and owner of the tractor are liable to make payment of the compensation. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record as well as the authorities cited at the bar. 10. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also perused the record as well as the authorities cited at the bar. 10. In the case of " Bhoi Vanaji Dhulaji & another v. Patel Shivabhai Kashibhai & others " (supra), claimant No. 1 who is father of deceased and others had been returning from a marriage party travelling in a trailer which was insured with the insurance company. The said tractor and trailer turned turtle and son of claimant No. 1 and other persons sustained injuries and son of claimant No. 1 succumbed to the injuries. Gujarat High Court has held as under "In the case at hand, the question which directly arises is as to whether, by virtue of a specific condition in the policy laying down that the user was restricted for agricultural and forestry purposes and that the policy did not cover use for carriage of passengers for hire or reward coupled with a specific mention in the caption `Important Notice' that the insured would not be indemnified if the vehicle is used or driven otherwise than in accordance with the schedule, which contained these restrictions with regard to the use of the vehicle, the insurance company would be absolved from the liability of satisfying the award with regard to third-party risk by virtue of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 96 and as discussed above, on analysis of the section, we are of the view that in such a case, if it is proved that the vehicle at the time of the accident, was used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward, in breach of a specific condition to that effect in the policy as aforesaid, then, the insurance company would not be bound to satisfy the award, so far as third party risk is concerned." 11. In the case of "Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh & Others" (supra), deceased Devaji was travelling in tractor attached with the trolley belonging to Sajjan Singh which was being used for transport of manure belonging to Saitan Singh which was being driven by Bahadur Singh. The vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. While travelling on the aforesaid tractor and trolley as a labourer for lifting the manure, the deceased fell from the tractor and was crushed under its wheels. The vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. While travelling on the aforesaid tractor and trolley as a labourer for lifting the manure, the deceased fell from the tractor and was crushed under its wheels. The Tribunal has absolved the insurance company from its liability on the ground that the vehicle was being used against the. policy conditions. The tractor and trolley were un-disputedly insured only for agriculture purpose and they were not to be used for commercial purpose as tractor and trolley were manifestly being used for transporting manure for commercial purpose and, therefore, the vehicle being used in violation of the insurance contract, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation which view was affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 12. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. (supra), a three Judges bench of the Apex Court has after over ruling the judgment in Satpal's case has clearly held that the provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get his vehicle Insured for any passengers travelling in the goods vehicle and the insurers would not be liable there for unless premium has been paid for covering the risks of the passengers travelling in such a vehicle. The decision in this case has been followed in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddy & Ors. etc. etc. (supra) wherein the same principle of law has been reiterated. 13. In the instant case the tractor was undisputedly insured for agriculture use only and not for carrying passengers in the trolley attached to it and no premium had been paid for covering the risk to the passengers travelling in the tractor or the trolley. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable to make payment of compensation to them as awarded by the Tribunal because they were travelling in the tractor trolley in violation/breach of the conditions of the policy. 14. The Tribunal was while deciding issue No. 4 pertaining to liability of the insurer has held on the basis of the cases of Sajid Mian v. Mst. 14. The Tribunal was while deciding issue No. 4 pertaining to liability of the insurer has held on the basis of the cases of Sajid Mian v. Mst. Ganga, reported in 1989(1) RLR 197 and the case of Jagdish v. Pokhar, reported in 1991 (1) RLR 287 that the insurer cannot escape its liability to make payment of compensation to the third parties even in the event of breach of policy conditions, but in the cases of New India Assurance Company v. Asharani & Ors., 2003 (1) SBR 534 , Oriental Insurance Company v. Devireddy Konda Reddy & Ors., 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 283 and Sohan Lal Parsi v. P. Sheshreddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) , the view of the Tribunal below and its decision on issue No. 4 cannot be sustained. Now, it is well-settled that the insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions. 15. In this view of the matter, therefore, in the instant case, the insurance company deserves to be absolved of its liability to make payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal in all these cases. But the claimants would be entitled to recover the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal from the driver and owner of the tractor/trolley. The issue'No. 4 is decided accordingly. 16. In the two appeals being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 764/95 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 90/96, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation of Rs. 57,000/- in each case as awarded by the Tribunal. His only contention is that the learned Tribunal below has wrongly, illegally and unjustifiably deducted 10% of the awarded compensation on account of lumpsum payment, but a perusal of the award reveals that no such deduction has been effected though it has been observed that 10% of the awarded compensation is deductabie on account of lumpsum payment. It is now well settled that no deduction can be made from the awarded compensation on account of lumpsum payment. It is now well settled that no deduction can be made from the awarded compensation on account of lumpsum payment. Since, no deduction has been made from the awarded compensation on account of lumpsum payment, no interference seems to be called for in the award passed by the Tribunal on the stated ground and these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 17. In the result, 13 appeals filed by and on behalf of the appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd. are allowed and while up-holding the award as regards quantum of compensation passed by the Tribunal below, the appellant is absolved of its liability to make payment of the said compensation in all these cases. However, it is made clear that if the amount of compensation has already been paid by the appellant, then the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the same from the driver and owner. The two appeals being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 764/95 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 90/96 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation are dismissed.All appeals allowed - Quantum of compensation not interfered with. *******