Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. All the three appeals have arisen out of the same question of facts arising out of three different motor accident claims petitions filed before the learned Member of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal which arose out of the same accident. 3. Deceased -Pradeep S/o Deeliprao Deshmukh was driving a motorcycle bearing number MH-12-CP-1073 from village Renapur towards Gursali in the night about 01:00 am on 24th January, 2008 within the territorial jurisdiction of Renapur Police Station, District Latur. Admittedly, he was not having a valid and effective licence for driving the motorcycle. Besides it, two other persons were also carried on the motorcycle as pillion riders about whom the next claim petitions were filed. While the motorcycle was being driven on the tar road to village Renapur, at that time, he gave dash to the tractor / trolley, which was in a turtled condition in the middle of the road. It transpired that as the center bolt of the trolley was broken, the same was turtled and the molasses, which was being carried in the said trolley was sprayed on the tar road. In this situation, when the motorcycle came at the place, it skidded due to molasses and dashed to the trolley resulting in instantaneous death of all 3 motorcycle riders. Therefore, three different claim petitions for claiming compensation came to be filed against the owner, driver and the insurer respectively of the trolley. 4. Before the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by way of oral evidence, the statement of one of each of the claimants i.e. legal representatives / dependents of the deceased in each case was examined. The driver and owner remained exparte during the proceedings. 5. Taking into consideration the oral evidence as well as the certified copies of the FIR and the panchanama of the spot of occurrence of accident, the learned Member in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.191 of 2008, which was filed by the parents of the deceased of Pradeep i.e. Motorcycle driver came to the conclusion as follows: The panchanama showed that while molasses seems sprayed on the road, the trolley was lying on the middle of the road. It further showed that no proper indicators were placed at the concerned site of the road, though it was night time i.e. 01:00 am. It further showed that no proper indicators were placed at the concerned site of the road, though it was night time i.e. 01:00 am. The molasses was sprayed covering an area of about 14 to 20 feet on the tar road. In the circumstances, the learned Member came to the conclusion that the driver of the trolley did not take due care and caution. The learned Member also found that the deceased was driving the motorcycle without having any effective and valid licence. It was also considered that he was driving the motorcycle alongwith two pillion riders and therefore, considering all these facts on record, the learned Member held that there was an equal contributory negligence of the deceased -Pradeep i.e. Motorcycle driver as well as the driver of the tractor / trolley. Therefore, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.191 of 2008 out of which the present First Appeal No.323 of 2010 has arisen, 50% of the compensation computed by the learned Member was directed to be paid by the driver, owner and the insurer/ present Appellant to the parents of the deceased. 6. In the 2 other petitions arising out of the death of pillion riders, the learned Member held that it was a composite negligence of the deceased motorcycle driver and the tractor / trolley driver. Therefore, finding that in case of composite negligence, all the tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, the learned Member directed that the entire quantum of compensation shall be paid by the present Appellant as the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were not made parties in these proceedings. 7. Mr. Mundada, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that when the deceased Pradeep was driving the motorcycle without having any effective and valid licence, without any helmet and carrying two pillion riders, the learned Member ought to have held that the deceased himself was solely rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle. His second submission is that in fact as the trolley has turn turtled on the road, soon preceding the present accident, it was not possible for the driver of the trolley to put any indicators. His second submission is that in fact as the trolley has turn turtled on the road, soon preceding the present accident, it was not possible for the driver of the trolley to put any indicators. His third submission is that though the tractor / trolley was permitted to be used for agricultural purposes and though the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance, limited liabilities as regards accident arisen out of such use only, in breach of the terms and conditions of policy of the insurance, the tractor / trolley was being used for commercial purposes on the road i.e. for transporting the molasses. 8. As regards the first objection, it should be noted that the learned Member has taken into consideration the fact of driving of motorcycle without having valid and effective driving licence, and of carrying two pillion riders. Therefore, it was rightly held by the learned Member that the deceased -Pradeep was also equally rash and negligent, which resulted into accident. To buttress the argument, Mr. Mundada however, relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of P.S. Somaiah Vs. Director, Bangalore Dairy, (2004 (1) T.A.C. 94 (Kant.)). In the said case, three persons were travelling by a motorcycle. It dashed against a Maruti van coming from the opposite direction. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal assessed negligence of the motorcycle driver at 60% and the driver of the Maruti van at 40%. In the appeal, the said findings were confirmed by the Karnataka High Court. 9. In the present case, on facts and circumstances placed before him, the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was equal contributory negligence i.e. 50% each of the deceased motorcycle driver and the driver of the tractor / trolley. Therefore, the ratio in the case of P.S. Somaiah Vs. Director, Bangalore Dairy (supra) would not be applicable in the present case. 10. As regards the contention that the driver of the trolley was not able to put any indicators, it may be noted that there is nothing on record to show that the present accident in question occurred soon after the skidding of the trolley on the road and therefore, without there having any pleading or proof in this regard, the contention cannot be accepted. 11. 11. As regards third of the submission of Mr. Mundada, counsel for the Appellant, it may be noted that the present claims have been filed as third party claims. It is an admitted fact that none of the deceased were being carried in the tractor / trolley. The trolley was being used for transport purpose, in breach of the terms and conditions regarding limitation as to use. However, the same is not relevant so far as the deceased are concerned, who were being carried on the motorcycle. In the circumstances, the breach of terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance has no nexus with the claim of third party and in such circumstances, the insurer cannot be absolved from indemnifying the owner of the tractor / trolley from payment of the compensation. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.