ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by an award dated 11. 2. 2005 passed by First addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sidhi. All these cases arise out of the same accident. ( 2 ) IT is averred by the claimants that the deceased persons used to do the work of labour. On 28. 3. 2002 deceased persons and two injured persons were going in tata truck 608 (MP 17-A 2136 ). Deceased and injured were labourers. They were going towards Churhat, truck was driven by Munnalal Kol in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with another stationary truck (MP 17-C 2084 ). Driver of the truck 608, Babulal, Lalji, Daduwa Yadav, Ramraj singh died in the accident. Accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver Munnalal Kol. Udaybhan and Shivcharan sustained injuries. Report of the incident was lodged at the concerned police station. Post-mortem of the deceased was performed. Injured were also medically examined. Claimants have prayed for just compensation. ( 3 ) THE owner in the reply denied the allegations and contended that Munnalal kol had no permission to go to load the wooden logs. He was not allowed by owner to load the logs. Without permission, he had taken certain incumbents for which owner cannot be said to be responsible. Driver was instructed to leave the truck at the petrol pump, Churhat. He loaded certain wooden logs and was going to Churhat for unloading. The owner, driver and the insurer of other truck were also necessary parties. ( 4 ) THE insurer contended that the truck was used in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In the goods vehicle passengers could not have been taken. Driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation. ( 5 ) LEARNED Claims Tribunal has found that driving licence of Munnalal Kol was forged. It was not issued by the concerned r. T. O. , Raipur. Apart from that the finding has been recorded that the passengers were taken in the truck at the time of accident, hence, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation. ( 6 ) MR. Apart from that the finding has been recorded that the passengers were taken in the truck at the time of accident, hence, there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Hence, the insurer is not liable to make the payment of compensation. ( 6 ) MR. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the statement of owner has not been properly understood by the learned Claims tribunal. He has submitted that without his knowledge and permission wooden logs were loaded and labourers were taken in the truck by the driver. He has further submitted that it is apparent from the policy, Exh. D2, exhibited in the Claim case No. 41 of 2004 that the insurance company has realized the premium for employees not exceeding six in number other than the driver. As the premium was realized by the insurer for six employees, as deceased persons were travelling in the capacity of labourer to unload the wooden logs which were loaded in the truck, insurer is liable. In case this fact was not in the knowledge of the owner, case of the insurer is not advanced in any manner. The entire statement of the owner has been misinterpreted by learned Claims Tribunal. Even if the labourers were taken without the knowledge of the owner by the driver for unloading the wooden logs that would not constitute violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It cannot be said to be a breach of policy much less substantial breach of the policy on the part of the owner, as such insurer cannot escape from the liability to make indemnification. With respect to the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the licence held by the driver, Munnalal Kol was forged, the learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in United india Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 acj 611 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), in which the Apex Court has laid down that until and unless it is in the knowledge of the owner that the licence held by the driver was forged, it does not constitute substantial breach on the part of the owner and insurer cannot escape from its liability to make payment of compensation. Hence, liability be saddled with the insurer. ( 7 ) MR. Hence, liability be saddled with the insurer. ( 7 ) MR. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has vehemently submitted that it is a case where owner himself has taken the plea that deceased and the injured persons were not his labourers. He has not authorised the use of the vehicle. Hence, there was substantial breach while the deceased and injured persons were taken, in fact they were travelling as passengers and not as labourers, thus, insurer is not liable. He has further submitted that owner cannot come up in appeal after taking the stand in his deposition that he has not allowed the user of the truck to driver as the deceased and injured persons were not his labourers. Thus, it cannot be contended by the owner in the appeal that the deceased/injured were the labourers, in order to saddle the liability upon the insurer. It was for the claimants to come up in the appeal not for the owner considering his statement in the tribunal. ( 8 ) MR. P. S. Gaharawar, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents in m. A. Nos. 1285, 1287 and 1290 of 2005 has submitted that the deceased-injured persons were travelling as labourers. Thus, there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It is not material whether it was in the knowledge of the owner or not. Premium has been realized by the insurer for six employees. In case number of employees has exceeded, number of human more in number at the time of accident would not constitute substantial breach on the part of the owner. Hence, joint and several liability be saddled upon owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. ( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the premium was realized for six employees other than the driver by the insurer as apparent from, the policy, Exh. D2, issued by National insurance Co. Ltd. In our opinion, the claims Tribunal on the basis of statement of Patiraj, the owner, has illegally exonerated the insurer from making payment of compensation. The statement of the owner which has been relied upon by the learned Claims Tribunal goes to indicate that without the knowledge of the owner, munnalal Kol had taken the vehicle for loading and unloading the wooden logs. The statement of the owner which has been relied upon by the learned Claims Tribunal goes to indicate that without the knowledge of the owner, munnalal Kol had taken the vehicle for loading and unloading the wooden logs. He has not authorised the driver for that purpose and he has not employed the labourers. Statement of the owner has to be read in toto. He has simply stated that it was not to his knowledge that wooden logs were taken and deceased/injured persons were taken in the capacity of labourers. In case the statement of the owner is relied upon, he was having no knowledge. In the absence of knowledge breach cannot be attributed to the owner. We find on facts that there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The fact remains that there is statement of claimant which has not been rebutted by any evidence that the deceased and injured were not travelling as passengers, but, they were in their capacity of labourers to unload the wooden logs which were loaded in the truck in question at the time of accident. There is absolutely no iota of evidence on record to show that deceased and injured travelled as fare paid passengers or to show that they were not the labourers. The statement of Patiraj is of ignorance and he was having no knowledge. Hence, there is absolutely nothing to discard the statement of claimant. Even in the written statement of the owner, it was mentioned in para 2 that he was not having any knowledge in what capacity deceased and injured persons were travelling in the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Facts were denied for want of knowledge which cannot be said to be denial though insurer set up the plea that the deceased-injured were travelling as passengers, but, there is no evidence on record to sustain the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal. Entire statement of patiraj when read suggests that he had not authorised the driver to take the wooden logs and the labourers at the time of the accident. Entire statement of patiraj when read suggests that he had not authorised the driver to take the wooden logs and the labourers at the time of the accident. In case the owner was not having knowledge and the driver has taken the wooden logs along with labourers, in our opinion, that does not constitute the breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the vehicle was a goods vehicle and insurer has realized the premium for six employees as per the policy. Hence, in our opinion, there was no breach much less substantial breach on the part of the owner. Vehicle was not used for different purpose than it was insured at the time of accident. ( 10 ) COMING to number of persons - six persons died, two persons suffered injuries. In case number of persons were more in number than covered in insurance policy, it does not constitute substantial breach as laid down by the Supreme Court in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC), in which the Apex court has followed the decision in Skandia insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC), in view of the fact that there was "breach of carrying humans in a goods vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of the insurance policy, it was laid down that the same cannot be said to be such fundamental breach so as to afford ground to the insurer to deny indemnification" unless there were some factors which contributed to the causing of the accident. The Supreme Court has laid down in B. V. Nagaraju's case (supra) that exclusion term of insurance policy must be read down to serve the main purpose, i. e. , to indemnify the insured. Our conclusion is fortified by the above decision of the Apex court in B. V. Nagaraju's case (supra) and skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra ). The supreme Court in B. V. Nagaraju's case (supra) has laid down thus: " (7) It is plain from the terms of the insurance policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. Ltd. (supra ). The supreme Court in B. V. Nagaraju's case (supra) has laid down thus: " (7) It is plain from the terms of the insurance policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, then how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. Here, it is nobody's case that driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was not disputed that the oncoming vehicle had collided head-on against the insured vehicle, which resulted in the damage. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. In the instant case, however, we find no such contributory factor. In Skandia's case, 1987 acj 411 (SC), this court paved the way towards reading down the contractual clause by observing as follows: '. . . When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependants on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by it, by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice. The court cannot but opt for the former view. Even if one were to make a strictly doctrinaire approach, the very same conclusion would emerge in obeisance to the doctrine of 'reading down' the exclusion clause in the light of the 'main purpose' of the provision so that the 'exclusion clause' does not cross swords with the 'main purpose' highlighted earlier. The effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the main purpose. The effort must be to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the main purpose. The theory which needs no support is supported by Carter's Breach of Contract, para 251. To quote: 'notwithstanding the general ability of contracting parties to agree to exclusion clauses which operate to define obligations there exists a rule; usually referred to as the 'main purpose rule', which may limit the application of wide exclusion clauses defining a promisor's contractual obligations. For example, in Glynn v. Margetson and Co. , (1893) AC 351, lord Halsbury, L. C. stated: it seems to me that in construing this document, which is a contract of carriage between the parties, one must in the first instance look at the whole instrument and not at one part of it only. Looking at the whole instrument and seeing what one must regard. . . as its main purpose, one must reject words, indeed whole provisions, if they are inconsistent with what one assumes to be the main purpose of the contract. ' although this rule played a role in the development of the doctrine of fundamental breach, the continued validity of the rule was acknowledged when the doctrine was rejected by the House of Lords in Suissee Atlantique Societe d'armement Maritime S. A. v. N. V. Rotterdamsche kolen Centrale, (1967) 1 AC 361. Accordingly, wide exclusion clauses will be read down to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the main purpose, or object of the contract. " ( 11 ) COMING to the finding that driving licence held by driver Munnalal Kol was forged, hence, the insurer was not liable. It is conceded at Bar that there is no finding or evidence on record to suggest that the owner had the knowledge that the licence held by Munnalal Kol was forged in the absence of any evidence on record. It cannot be said to be breach on the part of the owner. Owner is not supposed to make an enquiry in the various R. T. Os. so as to find out the genuineness of the licence. Hence, it cannot be a case of substantial breach on the part of owner, as such insurer cannot escape from the liability to make payment of compensation. Apex Court in united India Insurance Co. Owner is not supposed to make an enquiry in the various R. T. Os. so as to find out the genuineness of the licence. Hence, it cannot be a case of substantial breach on the part of owner, as such insurer cannot escape from the liability to make payment of compensation. Apex Court in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), held that: " (17) When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with R. T. Os. , which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of section 149 (2) (a) (ii ). The insurance company would not then be absolved of its liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner-insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 acj 1044 (SC) and New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC ). We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view. " ( 12 ) IN National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 (SC); sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 acj 1044 (SC) and New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC ). We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view. " ( 12 ) IN National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex court has held thus: "summary of findings: (102) The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (iii) The breach of policy conditions, e. g. , disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section 2 (a) (ii)of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence (s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle, the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. " ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that in the absence of the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the licence held by the driver was forged was to the knowledge of owner, insurer cannot escape from the liability to pay compensation. Thus, in our opinion, the Claims tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurer. In our opinion, the liability to pay compensation is joint and several of the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle in question. ( 14 ) APPEALS are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeals allowed. .