JUDGMENT : This order will also govern the disposal of C. R. No. 257/06, C. R. No. 258/06, C. R. No. 259/06, C.R. No. 264/06, C.R. No. 265/06, C.R. No. 266/06 and C.R. No. 267/06 and also Misc. Appeal No. 3305/06, Misc. Appeal No. 3306/06, Misc. Appeal No. 3308/06, Misc. Appeal No. 3309/06, Misc. Appeal No. 3310/06 and Misc. Appeal No. 3344/06. All the Claim Petitions are against the common award and they involved the same issue. 2. These revision petitions under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Misc. Appeals under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act have been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 14th August, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Khargone. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Civil Revision No. 260/06, arising out of Claim Case No. 130 of 2006 are mentioned. The brief facts are that the respondent No. 1 claimant was travelling in dumper bearing Registration No. M.H. 12-F-8612 as a labourer on 29-5-2005, when due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 Sitaram, the dumper turned turtle and the respondent No. 1 received injury. The other labourers travelling in the dumper also received injuries in the accident and some of the Labourers succumbed to the injuries. 4. The respondent No. 3 Dilip was the owner of the dumper and the respondent No. 1 was engaged by the respondent No. 3 for doing the work of labourer. The respondent No. 1 filed Claim Case No. 130/06, pleading that he was an employee of the respondent No. 3 and was travelling in the dumper to do the work of labourer, which met with an accident on the way consequently he received injuries. Undisputedly, the vehicle was insured with the present appellant i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 5. The claim was opposed by the Insurance Company and owner of the vehicle. 6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the award dated 14th August, 2006 holding that the Insurance Company is liable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the respondent No. 1 was travelling as gratuitous passenger and he was not travelling as labourer covered by the policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent No. 1. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the respondent No. 1 was travelling as gratuitous passenger and he was not travelling as labourer covered by the policy, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. She further submitted that the no extra premium was paid to cover the liability of the respondent No. 1. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 owner of the vehicle submitted that additional premium was paid to cover the risk of extra labourers and under the scheme of sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the employee of the insured is covered. He further submitted that as per the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules Labourers can travel in the goods vehicle and carrying more labourers than permissible in rule is not substantial breach of policy conditions and that the plea, which the Insurance Company is raising before this Court were not specifically raised in the reply before the Claims Tribunal and findings, which have been recorded by the Tribunal while fixing the liability on the Insurance Company are just and proper. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-Claimant submitted that no error has been committed by the Claims Tribunal in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company and that if this Court reaches to a different conclusion that the principles of pay and recover should be applicable. 10.1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Arising out the same accident 14 Claim Petitions were filed by the Claimants in respect of the persons, who had either received injury or had died in the accident, the details of which are as follows :- Sr. No. Claim No. Name of applicants 01 130/06 Phool Singh 02 131/06 Dangiya s/o Poonsingh  Agyan Palankarta Poonsingh 03 137/06 Kailash s/o Bangriya 04 134/06 Lai Singh 05 135/06 Kalabai 06 136/06 Kayenta @ Kantilal 07 139/06 Nabalsingh s/o Harsingh 08 140/06 Dayaram s/o Shyamlal  Agyan Palankarta Shyamlal 09 142/06 Kamlibai s/o Mansharam 10 132/06 Kamlibai and 5 others 11 133/06 Jaansingh and 5 others 12 140/06 Baliraj others 13 141/06 Somribai others 14 143/06 Gayarsibai others 12. In the present matter, the Claims Tribunal while examining the question of exoneration of the Insurance Company on the basis of the appreciation of evidence on record has found that the respondent No. 1 was travelling in the dumper of respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 1 was the employee of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 - Dilip (N.W-3), who is the owner of the dumper admitted that he was a class-A contractor and the labourers were appointed by him. The Tribunal also found that the owner of the vehicle had paid additional premium of Rs. 2685/- for covering the additional liability, therefore, the risk of the vehicle was covered. The Tribunal, therefore, found that the appellant - Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the award. 13. The appellant-Insurance Company in its reply before the Tribunal while denying the averments of the claim petition had raised the vague plea that the risk of the Insurance Company was not covered under section 147 of the Act and the vehicle was being driven in violation of section 149 of the Act. Their main objection in the reply was that the driver driving the vehicle was not competent to drive it. They had raised the objection that the respondent No. 1 was not engaged in the vehicle in question to work in the employment of the respondent No. 3, therefore, his risk is not covered. 14. The Insurance policy has been placed on record as N.A-2, which shows that the premium of Rs. 2685/- was paid under the head "any extra loading". The Insurance Policy has not disclosed that this amount of Rs. 2685/- was paid because the vehicle was old. The respondent No. 3 in his reply before the Tribunal as well as in his oral statement had clearly stated that the additional sum was paid by him to cover the liability of additional employees. As against this, the Insurance Company failed to produce any evidence to show that the additional premium, which was charged from respondent No. 3 was not for covering the risk of additional employees. Thus, Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that risk of the additional labourers sitting in the vehicle was covered. 15. The respondent No. 1 had raised the specific plea that he was employee of the respondent No. 3 owner of the vehicle. Thus, Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that risk of the additional labourers sitting in the vehicle was covered. 15. The respondent No. 1 had raised the specific plea that he was employee of the respondent No. 3 owner of the vehicle. The respondent No. 3 in his reply before the Tribunal had not disputed that the respondent No. 1 was employed by him, but he only stated that the respondent No. 1 was employed, through the sub­contractor. The respondent No. 3 in his statement before the Tribunal stated that at the time of accident all the persons travelling in his dumper were labourers. He also admitted that he was making payment of wages to these labourers. Thus, the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No. 1 was travelling in the dumper of the respondent No. 3 as his labourer is a finding duly supported by the evidence, which cannot be interfered with. 16. Counsel for the applicant has objected that more labourers were travelling than permissible in law, therefore, there was breach of policy and Insurance Company cannot be held liable. The goods carriage is defined under section 2(14) of the Act to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use "solely for the carriage of goods" or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for carriage of the goods. Under Rule 97 of M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1994, the bona fide employee up to six in addition to the driver in any goods carriage other than the light transport vehicle are permitted. 17. In the present case, the vehicle in question was registered with the State of Maharashtra and Rule 97 of the M. P. Rule is similar to Rule 108 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989. The Deputy RTO Vilas Kamble examined as N.A.W-3 on behalf of the Insurance Company admitted that Rule 108 of Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules permits taking of the 7 employees of the owner of the vehicle in the vehicle who can travel without paying any fair. The Branch Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company examined as N.A.W-2 also admitted that as per the policy conditions travelling of the employees in the vehicle is not violation of the policy conditions. 18. The Branch Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company examined as N.A.W-2 also admitted that as per the policy conditions travelling of the employees in the vehicle is not violation of the policy conditions. 18. Thus, to the extent of the seven employees the liability of the Insurance Company cannot be disputed, but in the present case, fourteen claim petitions had been filed in respect of the labourers, who were travelling in the vehicle in question and it has been submitted that since travelling of more persons than the permissive number is not substantial breach of the rules and policy condition, therefore, all the claimants are entitled to receive compensation from the Insurance Company. 19. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annapurna Shandilya and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 1168 , while considering the issue of travelling of ten persons against the sitting capacity of four persons held that there is no substantial breach of the policy and the Insurance Company cannot be exempted from the liability on the ground that the persons travelling in the vehicle were more than covered under the policy. The Division Bench of this Court has held that:- 12. First we shall come to the submission raised by Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. that number of persons travelling in the vehicle were 10, whereas the vehicle is insured and covers the insurance of 3+1 persons. In our considered opinion, taking passengers more in number than covered under insurance, insurer cannot escape from liability as it is not substantial breach of the policy as held by Apex Court in B. V. Nagaraju vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC). The Apex Court has followed the decision of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. 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 (supra) that exclusion term of the insurance policy must be read down to serve the main purpose of it to indemnify the insured. Our conclusion is fortified by the above decision of the Apex Court in B. V. Nagaraju (supra) and Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court in B. V. Nagaraju (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, 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 the 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 owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the 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 do not find such contributory factor. In Skandia's case, 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 dependents 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. 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. Effort must be made to harmonize the two instead of allowing the exclusion clause to snipe successfully at the main purpose. 20. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Nanded-Parbhani Z.L.B.M.V. Operator Sangh, reported in 2000 AIR SCW 261, has held that carrying passengers more than number specified in permit will not be a violation of the purpose for which the permit was granted. The Bombay High Court in the matter of Raghunath Eknath Hivale vs. Shardabia Karbhari Kale and others, reported in 1986 ACJ 460, while considering a case of a truck carrying 15-16 persons in addition to the goods while taking note of Rule 118 of Bombay Rules held that the Insurance Company is liable. 21. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sekdiya and others, reported in 2007 ACJ 778 in similar circumstances when the number of labourers travelling in a truck, which had turned turtle had either died or received injuries had held that travelling of more than 5 labourers is not fundamental breach of policy and the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated. 22. The Single Bench of this Court also in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mannibai and others, reported in 2006 ACJ 115 upheld the liability of Insurance Company in a case where twelve labourers working on the truck were travelling. 23. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company vs. Prema Devi and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1149 . 23. As against this, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company vs. Prema Devi and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1149 . The judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Thokchom Ongbi Sangeeta and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, reported in 2008 ACJ page 6 and the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Nilesh Kumar vs. Bapulal and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 331 , wherein it has been held that the Insurance Company is not liable in respect of the claim by the gratuitous passenger or passenger travelling in the goods carriage, but those were not the case of the employees insured, covered by the policy, therefore, the ratio of those judgment will not apply in the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is a finding that the claimants were employed by the owner of the vehicle as labourer. 24. Thus, in view of the above analysis, it is held that the respondent-owner had paid the additional premium to cover the risk of additional employees. The claimants were traveling in the vehicle as labourers/employees of the owner and carrying more labourers than permissible in rule was not substantial breach of policy condition, therefore, Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. 25. Thus, it is held that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in fixing the liability to pay the compensation amount on the owner driver and the Insurance Company jointly and severally. 26. Thus, the Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revisions filed by the Insurance Company are accordingly dismissed. No Costs. Appeal dismissed.