JUDGMENT : Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. By this first appeal exception has been taken to judgment and award dated 13.5.1991 passed by the learned member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Sangli in a claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is that their only son Divakar aged about 7 years died in a motor accident on 28.5.1987 at about 7 a.m. involving a tractor and trolley of the appellant. Appellant had brought his tractor along with trolley to the land of respondent No. 1, cousin, Ramchandra Ganpati Patil. The appellant loaded the trolley with manure in the said land and he was proceeding towards the land of Ramchandra Patil. The appellant found that there was a water canal and at that time the water was released through the canal. As it was not possible to take tractor and trolley further as the land near the canal had become damp, according to the case of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the appellant halted the tractor for a while and suddenly started it and took it in reverse without looking on rear side to find out whether there was anyone present. Thus, a dash was given to Divakar, the son of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and he fell down on the ground and he was run over by the rear wheel of the trolley. He died on the spot. The case of the appellant was that there was no negligence on his part. His case in the written statement is that the land by the side of the canal was ascending. He halted the tractor and while he was thinking as to which way he should adopt, the tractor and trolley slided behind. He noticed that the boy was run over by the trolley only after he heard some persons shouting. His contention is that he was acquitted in prosecution lodged against him. 3. The tractor and trolley was admittedly insured with the respondent No. 4. The defence of respondent No. 4 was that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as per the permit granted to use the tractor, the same could have been used within the State of Karnataka and there was no permit granted to use the vehicle in Maharashtra. The defence of respondent No. 4 was that there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as per the permit granted to use the tractor, the same could have been used within the State of Karnataka and there was no permit granted to use the vehicle in Maharashtra. The contention was that the appellant committed breach of the terms and conditions of the permit and that is how he has committed breach of the policy conditions. It was also submitted that the policy did not cover the risk arising out of use of tractor for hire. 4. The learned member of the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the appellant. The learned member held that the permit granted to the appellant was to use the tractor and trailer in the State of Karnataka and there was no permit granted to use the same in the State of Maharashtra. It was held that thus the appellant has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It was also held that at the relevant time the tractor was being used for transporting manure of Ramchandra Patil. The learned member held that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, were entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 5. The learned advocate for appellant submitted that there was no evidence on record to show any negligence on the part of the appellant. He submitted that there was no deliberate breach of the conditions of the policy established against the appellant by the insurance company, respondent No. 4. He submitted that negligence on the part of the appellant in observing the terms and conditions of the policy ought to have been established by the respondent No. 4. He submitted that therefore, the insurance company could not have been exonerated. He placed reliance upon a consent award made in the M.A.C. Application No. 84 of 1986 which is sought to be produced by filing Civil Application No. 2129 of 2006. The said civil application is filed seeking production of the award by way of additional evidence. His submission is that in case of the same tractor and trailer an accident took place in the State of Maharashtra. M.A.C. Petition No. 84 of 1986 arose out of the said accident. The said civil application is filed seeking production of the award by way of additional evidence. His submission is that in case of the same tractor and trailer an accident took place in the State of Maharashtra. M.A.C. Petition No. 84 of 1986 arose out of the said accident. His submission is that the respondent No. 4, accepted its liability and paid the compensation and in fact a consent award was passed. He, therefore, submitted that respondent No. 4 was precluded from contending that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the tractor and trailer could not have been used by the appellant in the State of Maharashtra. The learned advocate for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, Hassan. 6. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4 submitted that admittedly there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the appellant and, therefore, the respondent No. 4, had discharged its burden. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others. Learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, supported the impugned judgment and award. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the advocates appearing for the parties. The policy of insurance is produced at Exh. 41. The policy contains a clause under the heading 'limitation as to use'. The said clause provides that the use of the tractor and trailer was for agriculture and to carry own goods. 8. It will be necessary to refer to the evidence of appellant in the examination-in-chief. He stated that the tractor was brought to Dudgaon for agricultural work of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and he himself was driving the tractor. Thus, in the examination-in-chief itself he admitted that the tractor and trailer was brought not for his personal use but for the benefit of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the cross-examination he admitted that he had not obtained permission from Government of Maharashtra for running the tractor in this State. He also admitted that tractor was meant for his own agricultural use and on the date of the accident the tractor was used for transporting the manure of Ramchandra Patil. 1 and 2. In the cross-examination he admitted that he had not obtained permission from Government of Maharashtra for running the tractor in this State. He also admitted that tractor was meant for his own agricultural use and on the date of the accident the tractor was used for transporting the manure of Ramchandra Patil. In fact, his version is that at the relevant time, manure of Ramchandra Patil was already loaded in the trailer. Though he denied that he had let out the tractor to Ramchandra Patil, he did not examine the said Ramchandra Patil. In the cross-examination he admitted that he was not on inimical terms with Ramchandra Patil. The cross-examination shows that the appellant himself was aware that the tractor was meant for his own agricultural use and on the relevant date, the tractor was being used for transporting the manure of Ramchandra Patil. There is a clear admission that he was not holding a permit to use the tractor and trailer in the State of Maharashtra. Thus, it is obvious that admittedly there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the appellant. This is not a case where breach was committed without the knowledge of appellant inasmuch as he himself brought the tractor and trailer within the limits of State of Maharashtra and he himself stated before the court that at the time he was transporting the manure owned by the said Ramchandra Patil. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Nagaraju Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, Hassan. The question before the Apex Court was whether the alleged breach of carrying human beings in goods vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of the insurance policy is such fundamental a breach so as to afford ground to the insurer to avoid liability altogether. The Apex Court considered its earlier decision in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 . Apart from the fact that the issue which arose for consideration before the Apex Court is different the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) was considered by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others. Apart from the fact that the issue which arose for consideration before the Apex Court is different the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) was considered by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others. The view taken by the larger Bench is that the insurer has to prove that insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the policy conditions. In the present case, the appellant himself admitted that he was aware about the condition of using the vehicle for own agricultural purpose and he was also aware that he had not obtained a permit from the State of Maharashtra. 10. In my considered view, the learned member of the Tribunal was right in holding that breach of policy conditions on the part of the appellant insured was established. In fact, the same is established on the basis of evidence of the appellant himself. 11. So far as negligence is concerned, the appellant has stepped into witness-box and has deposed in examination-in-chief that he had stopped the tractor and trailer after noticing the dampness in the land as a result of release of water through the canal. In examination-in-chief he stated that while he was inspecting the road, tractor automatically moved behind and the boy came under the wheel of the trolley who died on the spot. In examination-in-chief, he stated that he never took the tractor in reverse gear. In cross-examination, he admitted that his tractor was having good hand brake and foot brakes. He admitted that while he was sitting in the driver's seat, the tractor moved back. It is not the case of the appellant that he had applied the hand brake. Any reasonable and prudent driver in his place would have applied hand brake. However, that case is not made out by the appellant. When the tractor started moving back, he was very much sitting in the driver's seat. Thus, there is failure on the part of the appellant to take care and that is the reason why a finding of negligence has been recorded by the Tribunal against the appellant. So far as quantum is concerned, the deceased was the only son of the respondents. At the time of death, his age was 7 years. Thus, there is failure on the part of the appellant to take care and that is the reason why a finding of negligence has been recorded by the Tribunal against the appellant. So far as quantum is concerned, the deceased was the only son of the respondents. At the time of death, his age was 7 years. Therefore, quantum of Rs. 50,000 cannot be said to be on the higher side and it is just and proper compensation. 12. Reliance placed by the advocate for the appellant on the compromise entered into by the respondent No. 4 in a claim involving the same tractor and trolley will not help the appellant. The compromise which is annexed to the civil application for additional evidence shows that the same was arrived at before Lok Adalat. It is not clear whether in the said case a defence was taken by respondent No. 4 that the tractor and trolley was being used for benefit of a stranger. The said compromise cannot help the appellant for fastening the liability against the respondent No. 4 in this case. As a matter of law, the appellant will have to establish the liability of the respondent No. 4. 13. Considering the aforesaid aspects, I find that no case is made out for interference. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. (ii) Time of three months is granted to the appellant to pay the balance amount as per the award.