ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE three appeals (M. A. Nos. 1591, 2424 and 2425 of 2004)have been preferred against common award dated 22. 3. 2004 passed by Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Betul in M. V. C. Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 2003. ( 2 ) THE owner has preferred these appeals as insurer has been exonerated from making payment of compensation amount awarded in accident dated 26. 3. 2003 when claimants were returning from Bhopal to betul in jeep bearing registration No. MP 23-D 5879. The respondent Santosh drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and the jeep turned turtle, owing to which the claimants suffered injuries. They were treated in the hospital. Claims petitions were preferred by claimants in the Claims tribunal. ( 3 ) THE owner Meera and driver Santosh in their reply contended that the driver possessed valid and effective driving licence. Owner has instructed driver not to carry the passengers. Vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. hence insurer is liable, if any death or injury were caused in accident. ( 4 ) THE insurer in the written statement contended that the vehicle was used for commercial gain to transport the goods and passengers. Driver possessed the licence to drive light motor vehicle. He did not possess the licence to drive transport vehicle as vehicle was used for transportation of flour mill. It was used as goods vehicle and as there was violation of the terms and conditions, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000 each to shri Ram and Pyarelal and Rs. 25,000 to phaganlal along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions. The amount of compensation has not been assailed by appellants. Tribunal exonerated insurance company from making payment of compensation. Hence, these appeals have been preferred by owner. ( 6 ) MS. Anita Kaithwas appearing for appellant has submitted that as the owner has instructed the driver not to carry the passengers as such insurer has been illegally exonerated. Driver possessed licence to drive light motor vehicle. Hence, the insurer cannot be exonerated in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) MR. ( 6 ) MS. Anita Kaithwas appearing for appellant has submitted that as the owner has instructed the driver not to carry the passengers as such insurer has been illegally exonerated. Driver possessed licence to drive light motor vehicle. Hence, the insurer cannot be exonerated in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) MR. Rakesh Jain appearing on behalf of insurer has submitted that as per the case set up by the claimants, they have admitted that Rs. 2,500 was paid as fare for driving of jeep for transportation of the flour mill persons were travelling with flour mill when the accident took place. Vehicle was insured for the use of private purpose not for commercial purpose hence the insurance company has been rightly exonerated, no interference is called for. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, it has been rightly found by Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was used by owner for commercial purpose whereas it was insured for private use hence the terms and conditions of insurance policy were violated. Thus, we find that terms and conditions of the insurance policy is violated. In similar circumstance, apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum, 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC), held that insurer is not liable. The Apex court ordered insurer to pay compensation fixed with right to recover the same from insured by initiating a proceeding before the executing court. In the instant case also the insurer is liable to make the payment of compensation and recover the same from the insured by initiating a proceeding before the executing court. In yet another decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC), similar view has been taken by the apex Court. ( 9 ) THUS, we find that only modification which is warranted in the award is that the driver, insurer and owner are liable to make the compensation it would be open to the insurer to recover it from insured in accordance with law. ( 10 ) THE appeals are allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no orders as to costs. M. C. P. 3856 of 2004, m. C. P. 3858 of 2004 and M. C. P. 4742 of 2004 are also disposed of. Orders accordingly. .