Judgment This appeal is filed by the appellant original respondent no.1 against the judgment and award dated 11/3/1997 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldhana in Claim Petition No.40/1993. 2. On 19/1/1993 at about 8.30 p.m., the Tractor bearing Registration No.MHW-6562 and Trolley bearing Registration No.MHS-7589 met with an accident near village Urha, Distt. Buldhana. In that, the original claimant -respondent no.1 herein sustained injuries. He filed claim petition for grant of compensation of Rs.75,000/-. 3. The present appellant who is the owner of the offending vehicle disputed the liability on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the driver while driving the vehicle. 4. The respondent no.3 herein who was also respondent no.3 in the claim petition, filed counter and resisted the petition. Their defence was that Tractor and Trolley were to be used for agricultural purpose, however, since the vehicle was engaged in carrying the goods on hire and also carrying passengers, they are not liable to honour the award, if any, passed against them. 5. On rival pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed issues. After considering the evidence, oral as well as documentary, the learned Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trolley and the claimant is entitled for compensation, however, the learned Tribunal exonerated the respondent no.3. 6. Mr. Mehadia, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is inconsistent with the evidence brought on the record. There was no justification for exonerating the respondent no.3 since the offending vehicles were insured with them. 7. None present for the respondents. 8. Shriram Malpani (P.W.1) original claimant deposed that he conducts kirana shop at village Urha Bujruk. He purchased the goods at Malkapur and loaded in the Trolley owned by respondent no.1. The other persons also loaded their goods in the Trolley. Because of the negligent driving of the Tractor, accident occurred. 9. In defence Ramesh Wankhede (D.W.1) -driver of the Tractor Trolley, has been examined. According to him, although, Shriram (P.W.1) was unknown to him, he allowed Shriram to load his goods in the Trolley and also board the same. It is transpired that along with claimant some other persons were allowed to travel in the trolley. 10. 9. In defence Ramesh Wankhede (D.W.1) -driver of the Tractor Trolley, has been examined. According to him, although, Shriram (P.W.1) was unknown to him, he allowed Shriram to load his goods in the Trolley and also board the same. It is transpired that along with claimant some other persons were allowed to travel in the trolley. 10. Considering the evidence brought on the record, the learned Tribunal observed, and rightly so, that use of the Tractor Trolley was in breach of the insurance policy. The relevant observations at para 9 of the judgment and award are reproduced below: "The vehicle involved in an accident is tractor-trolley. It not being a goods vehicle, there was no question of any permit for its use. It is not a case of the owner of the vehicle that he had obtained a permit, either to carry passengers, or to transport goods by the tractor-trolley. The owner of the tractor-trolley the insurance policy of the tractor and trolley both at Ex.56 and 57. The column "limitations to use" in those policies is left blank, but the Insurance Company has produced copies of the insurance policies retained by its office. The copies of the policies show that the tractor-trolley were to be used only for agricultural purpose. The owner does not dispute that the tractor-trolley were to be used for agricultural purpose. From the averment made in the claim petition it is clear that the claimant loaded the trolley with grocery articles. Not only the claimant, but other passengers, resident of Urha, also loaded the trolley with their goods. If the tractor-trolley was used by others for loading the goods and carrying them to the place of destination of its owner along with them, an unmistakable conclusion can be drawn that the tractor-trolley was used for transport of goods on hire." It is further observed that: "There is reason to believe that by a trolley no one was allowed to travel. The tractor-trolley was to be used only for agricultural purpose. The tractor-trolley was to be used only for agricultural purpose. If the owner of the tractor-trolley had carried agricultural produce, that too of his own, it could have been covered by the permit, but carrying of goods belonging to others is not covered by the policy and, therefore, the opponent no.3 has proved that the tractor-trolley was not used for the purpose for which it was allowed and it was used without there being any permit for carrying of goods on hire, which is neither covered by the policy, nor supported by any permit. As the tractor-trolley was used committing the breach of the condition of the policy, the insurer is absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner." 11. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are very much consistent with the evidence brought on the record. Insurance policy clearly spells out that "limitation to use -agricultural purpose". In the light of these facts and circumstances, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in exonerating the insurance company -respondent no.3 and saddling the responsibility on the owner of the offending vehicles. Thus the appeal lacks merit. 12. Appeal is dismissed. 13. Parties are left to bear their own costs.