JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2001 in MVOP No.636 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), (for short 'Tribunal') Kadapa, wherein the claim of the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition against the first respondent-owner of the vehicle alone. 2. The appellants herein filed claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of deceased Balashowry, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 2.9.1997. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 6 are the children of the deceased. According to them, on the morning of 2.9.1997 the deceased and others went to Rajupalem in the tractor-trailer belonging to the first respondent for loading bricks and while proceeding to Reddipalli, the deceased and other coolies sat on the top of the load of bricks on the tractor and at about 2.30 p.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, it over turned near Govindaiah Choultry, resulting in grievous injuries to the deceased and while under going treatment at Government Hospital, Badwel, he died. It is further pleaded that the deceased was 36 years and was working as coolie, earning Rs.3000/- per month and all the claimants were dependent on the income of the deceased. 3. The first respondent-owner of the tractor-trailer remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-insurer filed counter before the Tribunal opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation and further contending that the policy was issued in favour of A.C.Suryanarayana Reddy, which was in force from 9.6.1997 to 8.6.1998 and transfer if any of the vehicle in favour of the first respondent was not intimated to the 2nd respondent and so, there is no agreement or privity of contract between the 2nd respondent and first respondent. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle and policy does not cover the risk of any passengers. The deceased was not engaged for loading of bricks and he was only an unauthorized passenger. 4. On the strength of the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. It is further pleaded that the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle and policy does not cover the risk of any passengers. The deceased was not engaged for loading of bricks and he was only an unauthorized passenger. 4. On the strength of the above said pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP 02 T 5491 along with trailer bearing No.AP 02 T 5492 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amounts? 3. To what relief? 5. PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on behalf of the insurance company. 6. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by its driver; on issue No.2 the Tribunal held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition against the owner of the tractor-first respondent alone and the claim against the 2nd respondent was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred the present appeal. 8. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents are heard. Records are perused. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the 2nd respondent-insurer from the liability on the ground that transfer of vehicle is not intimated and in view of the decision in 'Sunil Kumar Vs. Laxman Singh & another1' wherein it was held that non- intimation of the transfer of the vehicle is not a ground to exonerate the insurer. Learned counsel for the insurer on the other hand contended that the policy is not transferred in favour of the first respondent and so there is no privity of contract between the first respondent and 2nd respondent. 10. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by its driver is not assailed by way of any appeal and the said finding has become final. 10. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by its driver is not assailed by way of any appeal and the said finding has become final. The other finding of the Tribunal that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is also not challenged. The only question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the 2nd respondent-insurer is also liable to pay the compensation? 11. RW.1-Assistant Divisional Manager of the Insurance company deposed that one A.C.Suryanarayana Reddy insured the tractor-trailer under the policy Ex.B.1 and the insurance company was not aware as to who first respondent was. He further deposed that as per the stipulation in Ex.B.1, vehicle can carry six persons other than the driver and as the conditions of the policy are violated, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. In the cross- examination RW.1 stated that he has not verified the registration certificate of the vehicle. Ex.B.1 copy of the policy contains the name of A.C.Suryanarayana Reddy as insured. As per Ex.B.1 the policy issued in respect of the subject vehicle was in force by the date of the accident. 12. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act says - 'No person shall use or allow any other person, to use, the motor vehicle in a public place, unless, there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be'. The policy of insurance is therefore required to be in force in relation to the use of the vehicle and once it is shown that as on the date of the accident, the policy issued in respect of the vehicle was in force, the insurer would be liable to cover the risk as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The grounds available for the insurance company to defend the action are mentioned in Section 149(2). Unless it is shown that there has been violation of the breach of specified conditions of the policy as enumerated in the said provision, the insurer cannot seek exoneration from its liability. The grounds available for the insurance company to defend the action are mentioned in Section 149(2). Unless it is shown that there has been violation of the breach of specified conditions of the policy as enumerated in the said provision, the insurer cannot seek exoneration from its liability. Unless the insurer is able to establish that there has been violation of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the policy and that too it was conscious violation on the part of the owner of the vehicle, the question of escaping from the liability under the policy does not arise. So long as the policy obtained in respect of offending vehicle is found to be in force, non-intimation of the transfer of the vehicle by the original owner in favour of the first respondent is of no consequence insofar as the claimants are concerned. Admittedly the claimants are third parties. Once it is shown that the third party risk is covered by the policy and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the accident occurred while subject vehicle was put to use, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. 13. The 2nd respondent-insurer contends that as per clause (3) of the condition, the policy does not cover use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees other than the driver, not exceeding six in number coming under the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The evidence of RW.1 is to the effect that the said condition of the policy was violated. As per the contents of Ex.B.2 FIR, PW.2 along with 7 others was travelling. Ex.B.2 shows, besides the driver, seven persons were travelling in the tractor-trailer. The limitation regarding number of persons, which was fixed earlier at 6' under Section 147, was subsequently removed, when the Act was amended in 1994. The policy Ex.B.1 was issued subsequently in 1997. The said clause (3) contained in Ex.B.1 restricting the liability to 6' employees is invalid and inoperative being contra to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 1994. 14. The policy Ex.B.1 was issued subsequently in 1997. The said clause (3) contained in Ex.B.1 restricting the liability to 6' employees is invalid and inoperative being contra to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 1994. 14. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased along with others was engaged as a coolie for the purpose of loading and unloading of bricks on the trailer and at the time of the accident, he was travelling along with the load of bricks in his capacity as a coolie engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading. The risk in respect of such employee engaged on the tractor is duly covered by policy Ex.B.1, which is an 'Act Policy'. The Tribunal did not record any finding to the effect that the deceased was unauthorized passenger on goods vehicle as alleged by the insurer. The only ground on which the Tribunal has dismissed the claim as against the 2nd respondent is that the transfer of the tractor by the first respondent was not intimated to the 2nd respondent. When once it is shown that the deceased was not unauthorized passenger but was an employee engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading on the tractor and on the date of the accident, the policy was in force, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner of the day, as to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, irrespective of whether original owner has intimated the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the first respondent or not. 15. In 'G.Govindan vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & others2' the Apex Court held as follows: ".... When the policy of insurance obtained by the original owner of the vehicle is composite one covering the risks for his person, property (vehicle) and the third party claim, on passing of title the transferee cannot enforce his claim in respect of any loss or damage to his person and vehicle unless there is novation. So far the third party risk is concerned the proprietary interest in the vehicle is not necessary and the public liability continues till the transferor discharges the statutory obligation under Ss.29-A and 31 read with S.94 of the Act. So far the third party risk is concerned the proprietary interest in the vehicle is not necessary and the public liability continues till the transferor discharges the statutory obligation under Ss.29-A and 31 read with S.94 of the Act. Till he complies with the requirement of S.31 of the Act the public liability will not cease and that constitutes the insurable interest to keep the policy alive in respect of the third party risks are concerned. It must be deemed that the transferor allowed the purchaser to use the vehicle in a public place in the said transitional period and accordingly till the compliance of S.31, the liability of the transferor subsists and the policy is in operation so far it relates to the third party risks............ ...In other words, a victim or the legal representatives of the victim cannot be denied the compensation by the insurer on the ground that the policy was not transferred in the name of the transferee". 16. In the light of the above decision, the finding of the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. In the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest. The award dated 5.3.2001 passed by the Tribunal in OP No.636 of 1999 is modified accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs.