JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant has questioned the award, dated 20th September, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 74 of 2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,66,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents 1 to 3 herein, with costs and the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company was saddled with the liability (for short, the “impugned award”). Brief Facts: 2. The claimants, being parents and minor brother of deceased Surjeet Singh, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. Precisely, the case of the claimants was that deceased Surjeet Singh was travelling in Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. HP-34-3632, on 18.05.2006, with goods, which were to be delivered to consignee Shri Budh Ram, son of Shri Bhomti. After the said goods were delivered to said Shri Budh Ram, the driver lost control over the said vehicle, at Chowuki near B.S.N.L. Tower, at about 6.00 p.m. and the vehicle rolled down. Surjeet Singh sustained injuries, was taken to Primary Health Centre, Jari and thereafter was referred to Zonal Hospital Kullu, but died on the way. FIR No. 227/2006, under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver and final charge-sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. The deceased was 19 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,500/- per month. 4. The respondents, i.e. the insured-owner, the driver and the insurer-Insurance Company contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 01.03.2007:- “1. Whether the deceased Surjit died in a motor accident caused on 18.5.06 at Chowuki near BSNL Tower due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep No. HP-34-3632 by its driver-respondent No. 2? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the deceased Surjit died in a motor accident caused on 18.5.06 at Chowuki near BSNL Tower due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep No. HP-34-3632 by its driver-respondent No. 2? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? ....OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? ....OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident? ....OPR -3 5. Whether the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle at the time of accident? If so, its effect? ....OPR-3 6. Relief.” 5. The claimants examined Head Constable Manoj Kumari (PW-1), Sher Singh (PW-3), Dr. Rituvesh Negi (PW-4), Gopi Chand (PW-5) and Dr. S.S. Pujara (PW-6). Claimant Rikta @ Kritka herself appeared in the witness box as PW-2. Respondents also examined Davinder Singh (RW-1), Kumari Aashita (RW-4) and ASI Khem Chand (RW-5). Owner Gopi Chand and driver Devinder Pal Singh also appeared in the witness box as RW-2 and RW-3, respectively. Parties also placed on record copies of FIR (Ext. PW-1/A), pariwar register (Ext. PW-2/A), death certificate (Ext. PW-2/B), MLC (Ext. PW-4/A), post mortem report (Ext. PW-6/A), driving licence (Ext. RW1/A), R.C. (Ext. RW-2/A), insurance cover note (Ext. RW-2/B) and insurance policy (Ext. R.X.). 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of driver, namely, Devinder Pal Singh, in which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Issue No. 1 7. The appellant or any other party to the lis has not questioned the impugned award relating to this issue. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 2. 8. The claimants have proved by leading evidence, oral as well as documentary, that the age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,500 per month. The Tribunal, after making assessment, held that the loss of dependency towards the claimants was not less than Rs.16,000/- per annum. Issue No. 2. 8. The claimants have proved by leading evidence, oral as well as documentary, that the age of the deceased was 19 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.3,500 per month. The Tribunal, after making assessment, held that the loss of dependency towards the claimants was not less than Rs.16,000/- per annum. Thus, the multiplier of 16’ was just and appropriate, while keeping in view the age of the deceased and the claimants. 9. The insured-owner, driver and the claimants have not questioned the assessment of the compensation made by the Tribunal, thus is not disputed. 10. After examining the evidence available on the record, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has granted just and appropriate compensation to the tune of Rs.2,56,000/- under the head “loss of dependency”, Rs.5,000/- under the head “funeral expenses” and Rs. 5,000/- under the head “loss of estate”, total amounting to Rs. 2,66,000/-, to the claimants. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 3. 11. The driver was having the driving licence to drive the “light motor vehicle”, as per driving licence Ext. RW-1/A and the Mahindra Jeep is also a “light motor vehicle” as held by this Court in FAO No. 33 of 2010, titled as the United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Shri Madan Lal & others alongwith another connected matter, decided on 17.10.2014. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove this issue. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are also upheld. Issue No. 4. 12. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy read with the mandate of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. 13. It is a beaten law of land that the insurer has to plead and prove that the owner of the offending vehicle has committed willful breach of the terms contained in the Insurance Policy and mere plea here and there cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration. 14. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 . 14. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 . It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment, supra, herein : 105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) ………………. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v)......................... (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149 (2) of the Act.” 15. It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, hereinbelow: “10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 5. 16. Admittedly, the claimants have pleaded in the claim petition that deceased Surjeet Singh was travelling in the offending vehicle as an employee of the owner in order to deliver the goods to consignee Shri Budh Ram, son of Shri Bhomti, resident of Village Malana; while returning back after delivering the goods, the vehicle met with an accident and the deceased lost his life. The claimants have pleaded and proved the said fact. The insured-owner and the driver have also admitted that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as an employee of owner Gopi Chand and met with the accident after delivering the goods. 17. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kamla and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 1550 , has also discussed the same issue while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. 17. This Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kamla and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 1550 , has also discussed the same issue while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Cholleti Bharatamma, reported in 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) and held that a person who had hired the vehicle for transporting his goods for sale and was returning in the same vehicle, cannot be held to be an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger till he reaches the place of destination. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 to 11 of the judgment herein : “8. Coming to the second plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, a perusal of the reply filed by respondent No. 2, insurance company shows that they had only pleaded that the deceased was admittedly not employee of the insured and was traveling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it was submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable. Reliance was also placed upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) wherein the plea was taken that the owner himself travel in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to be covered under Section 147. However, in case the driver permits a passenger to travel in the tool box, he cannot escape from the liability that he was negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash or negligent driving is not to be proved and, therefore, this decision does not help the appellant. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant had also relied upon the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maghi Ram Ram, 2010 ACJ 2096 (HP), wherein a learned Judge of this Court has considered the question and had observed that the Insurance Company is liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. It was observed that it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. 10. It was observed that it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle at the time of accident. 10. The allegations made by the petitioners in the petition as well as in the evidence were that the deceased had gone after hiring the truck with his vegetable and was coming in the same vehicle when the accident took place. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 4 had relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Urmila, 2008 ACJ 1381 (P&H) H), wherein, it was observed that a passenger was returning after selling his goods when the vehicle turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving. Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that the deceased was no longer owner of the goods as he had sold them off. It was observed that the deceased had hired the vehicle for transporting his animals for selling and was returning in the same vehicle. It was held that the deceased was not an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle till he reached the place from where he had hired the vehicle. 11. The above decision clearly applies to the present facts, which are similar to the facts of the case and accordingly, I am inclined to hold that the deceased was not an unauthorized/ gratuitous passenger. No conditions of the insurance policy have been proved that the risk of the owner of goods was not covered in the insurance policy and as such, there is no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, which is rejected accordingly.” 18. This Court has also laid down the same principle in FAO No. 9 of 2007, titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Teji Devi & others, alongwith another connected matter, decided on 22.08.2014. 19. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, has not led any evidence to this effect and has failed to prove it. 20. 19. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, has not led any evidence to this effect and has failed to prove it. 20. It is an admitted case of the parties that the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle at the time of accident; he was deputed as a representative of goods in the said vehicle by the owner in order to deliver the same to one Shri Budh Ram and while returning back after consigning the goods, the vehicle met with an accident. Thus, it cannot be said that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in para-14 of the impugned judgment and decided it against the insurer and in favour of the claimants. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on this issue are upheld. 21. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 22. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque. 23. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.