JUDGMENT 1. - The decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other connected appeal being CMA No. 206/2002 because both appeals arise out of one award and one claim case. 2. This is a misc. appeal filed by injured claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 27th August, 2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota in Claim Case No. 1259/98 (376/95). 3. By impugned award the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and while awarding a total compensation of Rs. 5,03,965/-, to the claimant for the injuries sustained exonerated the Insurance Company (Insurer of offending vehicle) from the liability and confined the same only against owner and driver of offending vehicle. So far as other appeal CMA No. 206/2002 is concerned, it is filed by owner and driver of offending vehicle. 4. In the appeal filed by the claimant, two questions are raised. First the compensation awarded to claimant is on lower side and hence it should be further enhanced. Second the award should also have been passed against the Insurance Company. In other words, the Tribunal erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability and on the facts on record, the Insurance Company too should have been held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident. So far as appeal filed by owner and driver is concerned, they too have contended that Insurance Company should have been held liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident. 5. At the outset it may be mentioned that during pendency of this appeal, claimant died. In this view of the matter, the question of consideration of any further enhancement in the compensation in this appeal does not arise. The appeal filed by the claimant survives only for the purpose of examining limited two questions - as to whether liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company by the Tribunal and second whether amount spent by the claimant out of his estate could still be enhanced. 6. Coming first to the question of quantum of compensation, awarded by Tribunal under different heads such as expenses incurred in treatment, pain and suffering and extent of disability, having gone through the evidence, I find that it is just, reasonable and does not call for further enhancement. 6. Coming first to the question of quantum of compensation, awarded by Tribunal under different heads such as expenses incurred in treatment, pain and suffering and extent of disability, having gone through the evidence, I find that it is just, reasonable and does not call for further enhancement. In other words, the Tribunal did examine the evidence and then recorded a finding on all the issues. I have not been able to notice any evidence which could be held as having been ignored or not considered by Tribunal and hence on this issue, I uphold the finding of Tribunal without much discussion. 7. Coming to the issue of liability of Insurance Company, which was urged by both the appellants of the two appeals against the Insurance Company. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties on this issue, I am inclined to accept this submission and while disagreeing by the Tribunal, reverse the finding in appellant's favour and accordingly hold the Insurance Company liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident alongwith others jointly and severally as is clear by facts mentioned infra. 8. It is a case where injured claimant (since dead) by name Kalu Lal was travelling in tractor trolley bearing No. RJ-20-3249 alongwith the goods (bags of mustard). It is at that time, turned turtle and collapsed causing injuries to him. The case of Insurance Company was that firstly the driver was having learner's license and secondly the tractor was being used for purpose other than the one for which it was insured i.e. it was insured for agricultural purpose whereas it was being used for commercial purpose and, hence it, constituted a breach of term of the policy. 9. So far as issue relating to driving license was concerned, in my opinion, it has to be answered against the Insurance Company in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 : 2004 (1) TAC 321 (SC) , and specially its condition No. VIII which lays down as under:- "(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. 10. 10. Since, on the date when the Tribunal decided the claim (27.8.2001) the law on this issue was not laid down and hence this finding deserves to be reversed in favour of claimants. It is accordingly reversed and answered in claimant's favour. 11. Coming now to another question as to whether the tractor/trolley was being used for commercial purpose as held by Tribunal, I do not agree. In the first place, the goods which were being carried in the tractor were agriculture one (mustard). Secondly they were being transported from one place to other and thirdly there was no conclusive evidence to prove that they were being transported on payment received from someone i.e. third parties. In my view, therefore, the tractor/trolley was being used for the same purpose for which it was insured i.e. agricultural purpose and, hence, there was no breach on the part of the insured while using on the date of accident. 12. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company took me to evidence on this issue and also referred to the finding of Tribunal but I am not impressed by either. The Tribunal has devoted pages after pages for probing into this question but it is totally irrelevant. There is no documentary evidence to prove this fact. Similarly occular evidence does not inspire any confidence when referred. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on 2006 (T.A.C.) page 1 to contend that no liability in such situation can be fastened. I do not agree in the light of Swarn Singh case mentioned supra, which holds the field. 14. In the light of foregoing discussion the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned award is modified to the extent that it is also passed against the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3)/NA/3 jointly and severally alongwith respondent Nos. 1/2 (N.A.a/2).Appeal allowed in part. *******