JUDGMENT Dr. A.K.Rath,J. Insurer is the appellant. It challenges the award dated 23.05.2009 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge & 3rd MACT, Boudh in MACT Case No. 13 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,52,800/-and directed the insurer to pay the same along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till the date of realization. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case of the respondents 1 to 4, who are claimants before the tribunal, is that the deceased Sankar Podha was working as a labourer in a tractor and trolley bearing registration no. OPR 12A 5531 & 5532 respectively. On 25.04.2008 at about 3.00 A.M. while he was travelling from Landreju to Boudh in the said vehicle, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, he fell down from the tractor and was run over by the trolley, as a result of which he succumbed to injuries on the spot. Thereafter the claimants, who are the legal heirs and dependants of Sankar Podha filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, before the Additional District Judge & 3rd M.A.C.T., Boudh. 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite party no.1, insurer of the offending tractor-trolley, entered appearance and filed the written statement denying its liability. Opposite party no. 2, owner of the offending vehicle, also filed a written statement denying liability. 4. On the inter-se pleadings of the parties, learned tribunal stuck three issues. To prove the case, the claimants had examined three witnesses and seven documents were exhibited on their behalf. On behalf of opposite party no. 1 three documents were exhibited. Opposite party no. 2 exhibited one document. 5. On a thorough analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary and the pleadings of the parties, learned tribunal came to hold that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley bearing registration no. OPR 12A 5531 & 5532 respectively. Having held so, the learned tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,52,800/-(rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand eight hundred). 6. Assailing the award, Mr. A.A.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor-trolley,the learned tribunal committed manifest illegality and impropriety in saddling the liability on the insurer. Having held so, the learned tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,52,800/-(rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand eight hundred). 6. Assailing the award, Mr. A.A.Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor-trolley,the learned tribunal committed manifest illegality and impropriety in saddling the liability on the insurer. He further submitted that since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the insurer is exonerated its liability. Mr. Khan further submitted that since the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle and the driver of the vehicle was having a licence to drive non-transport light motor vehicle tractor, he was not authorized to drive the said vehicle. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants supported the award. 7. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant produced the temporary permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Phulbani, Kandhamal and R.C.Book. These documents were marked as Exhibit-A/1 and B/1 respectively before the learned tribunal. On a perusal of the temporary permit, it is evident that the offending vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle. Clause -12 of the said permit provides that the vehicle may carry four mazdoors for loading and unloading of goods besides the driver. It further provides that not more than six persons in all including the driver shall be carried in vehicle and the number of persons carried in the cabin of the vehicle shall not exceed the number records in the registration certificate. The registration certificate shows that the seating capacity of the vehicle was one. Taking a cue from the R.C.Book, Mr. Khan submitted that since the seating capacity of the vehicle was one and the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger, the insurer is exonerated from the liability. Though the submission of Mr. Khan at a flash appears to be attractive, but on scanning of the documents this Court finds that the submission is billabong. Clause-12 of the terms and conditions of the permit provides that the vehicle may carry four mazdoors for loading and unloading of goods and that the number of persons carried in the cabin of the vehicle shall not exceed the number records in the registration certificate. In a cabin of a tractor one person is permitted, i.e., the driver. Clause-12 of the terms and conditions of the permit provides that the vehicle may carry four mazdoors for loading and unloading of goods and that the number of persons carried in the cabin of the vehicle shall not exceed the number records in the registration certificate. In a cabin of a tractor one person is permitted, i.e., the driver. It is the common knowledge that the labourers used to travel in the trolley 8. As regards the plea of the insurer that no extra premium having been paid to cover the risk of the labourer travelling in a tractor trolley, the same is erroneous and misconceived. A tractor fitted with trolley is a goods carriage and as per Section 147(1) of the M.V.Act, no extra premium is required to be paid to cover the liability of such a labourer. An identical question came up for consideration before this Court in the case of the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Minka Munda and two others, 2009 (II) OLR 982 . This Court held as follows: “As regard the plea of insurer that no extra premium having been paid to cover the risk of a labourer travelling in a tractor-trolley, the same is erroneous and misconceived. A tractor fitted with a trolley is a goods carriage and as per Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act, no extra premium is required to be paid to cover the liability of such a labourer carried in a goods vehicle.” 9. The residual question to be decided is as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Though driving licence of the driver was exhibited as Exhibit-C/1, but the learned tribunal did not delve in to that aspect of the matter. Even if the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the claimants will not suffer for that. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala and others, AIR 2001 SC 1419 , their Lordships held that the insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. In the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kamala and others, AIR 2001 SC 1419 , their Lordships held that the insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid licence. The ratio of the said case applies with full force to the facts of the present case. 10. As a sequel, the award passed by the learned tribunal is confirmed. The matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal to decide the issue regarding validity of the driving licence of the driver. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest before the learned tribunal within three months. After deposit of the award amount the learned tribunal shall decide the issue as indicated above after affording opportunity to the insurer and insured for which no notice is required to be issued to the claimants. No costs. Ordered accordingly.