Judgment 1. Appellant M/s National Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal for modification of the Judgment dated 6.8.2003 and Award dated 19.8.2003 passed by Sri B. Ram, Additional District Judge-II-M.V. Claim Tribunal, Khagaria, in MACT Case No.18/1999 (Rajiv Kumar V/s. Smt. Rani Devi and Others), directing the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs.1,74,500/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the claim petition after deducting Rs. 50,000/- already paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Appearance of Respondent No. 3 being the Driver of the erring vehicle has been dispensed with. 3. The aforesaid claim case was filed before the above noted Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal by the claimants-respondents in respect of death of Sanjiv Kumar due to motor accident having taken place on 23.6.1999 at 5.45 P.M. on National Highway near Chaida Babnni Gogri (Mehesi) when the deceased was going to Parbatta with decoration material of Jaiswal Light Centre on Tractor bearing Registration No. BR-34-2354 with Trailer bearing Registration No. BR-34-2356 belonging to Respondent No. 2 Smt. Rani Devi which were insured with Khagaria branch of the appellant-Company being driven by Respondent No. 3 Ghanshyam Chowdhary. 4. The facts giving rise to the appeal as per claim petition is that Claimant-brother and an employee of Jaiswal Light Centre getting a monthly salary of Rs. 3,000/ - was going to Parbatta on the aforesaid vehicle with decoration materials which met fatal accident on 23.6.1996 at the above-noted time and accordingly, FIR Ext. 1 was lodged by his brother Sanjay Kumar to this effect that he alongwith the deceased Sanjiv Kumar had left for Parbatta with decoration materials with the aforesaid tractor and trailer. The informant was sitting by the side of the driver-Respondent No. 3 whereas his brother (deceased) was sitting on the trailer (Dala). The driver was driving rashly and negligently and as such the tractor turned down while taking a turn resulting in the death of his brother under the loaded trailer at the place of occurrence. 5. It has been contended that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., Khagaria, in which one Dheeraj Kumar was shown as owner and Central Bank of India. 5. It has been contended that the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd., Khagaria, in which one Dheeraj Kumar was shown as owner and Central Bank of India. Khagaria Branch was financier under Hire Purchase Scheme which was meant for agricultural purposes and the premium was paid for only one person and so the appellant was not liable to pay because of the lapses on the part of the deceased. 6. It has been further contended that Respondent No. 2 i.e. owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the Policy so as to allow the vehicle to ply for commercial purposes, when that vehicle was meant for agricultural purpose only. Because more than one passenger was travelling in the said tractor i.e. excluding the driver for which no insurance cover was obtained, so the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the victim-claimants. 7. It has also been averred that Registration of the vehicle with Tax token and Fitness Certificate stood in the same of respondent No. 2 Smt. Rani Devi wife of Late Om Prakash Chowdhary. But the Insurance policy has been taken in the name of one Dheeraj Kumar concealing the material facts and the Policy is void and for that Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the victim. 8. Reliance has been placed on Ext. B and so the contention has been advanced that there had been violation of Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) and (ii) as also Section 149(2)(b) of the Act, and that drivers license expired on the date of accident. 9. It was pleaded on behalf of respondent no. 2 that she was ignorant of the act of her driver to allow the deceased to load decoration materials on way and she had gone to her Naihar on 18.6.1999 when she found her placitum tree drying. So, she sent her driver with Rs. 5,000/- to purchase diesel, fertilizer, etc. But the driver committed mischief and without her instruction loaded the decoration materials. 10. It has also been averred that she had paid premium through her son Dheeraj Kumar. 11. It has been contended on behalf of the Insurance Company-Appellant that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order and without discussing the points raised by the appellant there, has held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. 10. It has also been averred that she had paid premium through her son Dheeraj Kumar. 11. It has been contended on behalf of the Insurance Company-Appellant that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order and without discussing the points raised by the appellant there, has held the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation. The grant of ad interim compensation by way of passing order under Section 140 as also 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act has also been challenged. 12. In reply learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the deceased was driving the vehicle in question without consent and knowledge of the owner. So, it would not tantamount to the breach of conditions of the Policy and for that the Insurance Company will have to establish the fact that it was deliberate and wilful breach of the conduct on the part of the insurer to escape from its liability and unless the insured owner is at fault and held guilty of breach of terms of Policy, the insurer cannot escape from its liability when the insured had taken the services and engaged licensed driver. So, for lapses on the part of the driver to ply the vehicle without permission of owner, Insurance Company cannot be exempted. 13. Reliance has been placed on various judgments reported in 2005(1) T.A.C. 270 (P&H). Another decision has also been cited reported in I (1997) ACC 251 (DB) H.P. wherein it has been held that owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the appellants-claimants and the respondent-Insurance Company is also liable to satisfy the said Award. 14. On the other hand, several decisions have been cited on behalf of the appellants which are 2000(1) TAC 643 (AP), 2003(1) PLJR (SC)213, (2003) 2 SCC 339 , 2004(4) PLJR (SC) 147, 2007 (2) PLJR (SC) 216. The latest decision of the Hon ble Apex Court deals with more or less similar facts when the deceased was travelling on a tractor i.e. in a goods vehicle. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. 15. The latest decision of the Hon ble Apex Court deals with more or less similar facts when the deceased was travelling on a tractor i.e. in a goods vehicle. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. 15. In sum and substance, emphasis has been given to rely upon those decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court so as to show that the insurer in the present facts and circumstances of the case is not liable to satisfy the Award. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has, thus, concluded that the insurance cover was meant in respect of the tractor in question for agricultural purposes, but the tractor at the relevant time was being used for the commercial transaction i.e. carrying of decoration materials with overloading capacity for which there was no insurance cover. 17. So, if there is any liability of paying compensation, the same liability may be fastened on the shoulder of the owner and not on the Insurance Company. 18. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the reasons assigned for passing an order of Award, thereby directing the Insurance Company to pay the claim award with interest by the Tribunal the same cannot be said sustainable as on facts as also on law. 19. So, the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and this appeal is, accordingly, allowed.