JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 2. F.A.F.O. No. 1260 of 2011 has been filed by the car owner/appellant (Ramhet) assailing the award dated 10.02.2011 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No.138 of 2009 by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, Faizabad. 3. Vide order dated 13.1.2012 passed in F.A.F.O., a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court provided that the entire awarded amount will be deposited by the appellant in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which upon being received shall be invested by way of fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank but before the aforesaid orders being implemented, the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount so awarded. Therefore, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid review petition, bearing No. 308 of 2013. 4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw review petition No. 308 of 2013. Accordingly, review petition No. 308 of 2013 is dismissed as withdrawn. 5. On 9.5.2009, at about 10.00 A.M., when Santosh Kumar Mishra, who was working as Supervisor in Steel Product Ltd., Faizabad, was on the way to Babhnan via Parshurampur for official work with his Motor Cycle, bearing registration No. U.P. 43 J/7784, driver of tractor, bearing registration No. U.P. 43 H/9923 (swaraj), while driving negligently and rashly, dashed the motorcycle, as a consequence of which, Santosh Kumar Mishra fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, Santosh Kumar Mishra was taken away to the District Hospital, Faizabad, where he succumbed to injuries during treatment. 6. In order to claim the compensation, legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Mishra have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad by filing Claim Petition No. 138 of 2009. The Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings and hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.12.2010, allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,51,000/- to the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants, however, liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation so paid to the claimants from the owner of the tractor. 7. 5,51,000/- to the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants, however, liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation so paid to the claimants from the owner of the tractor. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the direction of the tribunal vide impugned award dated 24.12.2010 that liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor, the appellant, who is the owner of the tractor, has filed FAFO No. 1260 of 2011. 8. While assailing the impugned award and on placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh : (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the only submission advanced by the Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not found any material fact, which shows that appellant was on fault for causing the accident. Further, at the time of accident i.e on 9.5.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., the vehicle was fully insured with the Insurance Company but the Tribunal erred in not considering these vital issues and instead directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the appellant in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. 9. Before going into the merit of the case, it is apt to reproduce paras 48 to 52 of Swaran Singh (supra), which are as under : - "48. Furthermore, the insurance company with a view to avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that the conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b) are satisfied but is further required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more extensive remedy has been conferred upon those who have obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a certificate of insurance is delivered in terms of Section 147(3) a third party has obtained a judgment against any person insured by the policy in respect of a liability required to be covered by Section 145, the same must be satisfied by the insurer, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or to cancel the policy or may in fact have done so. The same obligation applies in respect of a judgment against a person not insured by the policy in respect of such a liability, but who would have been covered if the policy had covered the liability of all persons, except that in respect of liability for death or bodily injury. 49. Such a breach on the part of the insurer must be established by the insurer to show that not only the insured used or caused or permitted to be used the vehicle in breach of the Act but also that the damage he suffered flowed from the breach. 50. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However, the question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof. 51. It is trite that where the insurers relying upon the provisions of violation of law by the assured takes an exception to pay the assured or a third party, they must prove a wilful violation of the law by the assured. In some cases violation of criminal law, particularly, violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act may result in absolving the insurers but, the same may not necessarily hold good in the case of a third party. In any event, the exception applies only to acts done intentionally or "so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences of his act might be". 52. In Narvinva' case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed : "...The insurance company complains of breach of a term of contract which would permit it to disown its liability under the contract of insurance. If a breach of term of contract permits a party to the contract to not to perform the contract, the burden is squarely on that party which complains of breach to prove that the breach has been committed by the other party to the contract. The test in such a situation would be who would fail if no evidence is led..." 10. The test in such a situation would be who would fail if no evidence is led..." 10. From the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh (supra), if the owner of the offending vehicle has taken due care at the time of appointing the driver, then he is not liable to pay any compensation in case the vehicle is duly insured. 11. On perusal of the impugned award, it reflects that while deciding issue No.3 i.e. whether at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence, the Tribunal, after perusing the record and appreciating the evidence, recorded that at the time of accident, the driver of the tractor was having valid driving licence. Therefore, on this score, in view of Swaran Singh (supra), the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as at the time of accident, the tractor was fully insured. 12. However, liberty was granted to the Insurance Company by the Tribunal on the ground that trolly was attached with the Tractor at the time of accident as C.P.W.-2 Niraj Mishra, who is the independent witness, deposed that at the time of accident, trolly was attached with the tractor. According to the appellant, there was no recovery of any trolly by the police authority when tractor has been impounded on account of the accident which taken place. Thus, it appears that the Tribunal, merely relying upon the evidence of C.P.W.2 Niraj Mishra, came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the trolly was attached with the tractor and the trolly was not insured, therefore, there was a breach of insurance and as such, liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation to the owner of the tractor. In our view, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it appears that there is a dispute to the fact that at the time of accident, trolly was attached with the tractor or not, therefore, the Tribunal erred in granting liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor. 13. In our view, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it appears that there is a dispute to the fact that at the time of accident, trolly was attached with the tractor or not, therefore, the Tribunal erred in granting liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that normally, Tractor-trailer/trolley is used for agricultural purpose and if it found that same was used for agricultural purpose and same is covered by the 'Farmer Comprehensive Policy' or the 'Farmer Package Policy', in such situation, insurer is liable to pay compensation. If the above referred two conditions are not fulfilled, insurer can not be held responsible to pay amount of compensation. Further, in the Annexure of Indian Motor Tariff, list of Miscellaneous and Special types of vehicles is given. As per the said list tractors can be used for Agricultural and if Trolley is attached to such Tractor, same may be used for carrying goods. As per the said list there is one another kind of Tractor, which is 'Traction Engine Tractor'. If is found that tractor is not used for the purpose of agricultural work and if it used for carrying goods, such tractor-trolley must be insured for such purpose and if is not insured as such, insurer is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. 14. From the records, it appears that it has not established by the Insurance Company that the trolley attached with the tractor was used by the owner of the tractor for carrying goods. It appears that O.P.W.3 Shiv Pujan Verma deposed that the police has impounded the tractor from his field but the Tribunal did not believe his evidence on the ground that he is an interested witness. From the impugned award, it reflects that the Tribunal has not recorded specific finding with regard to the place from where tractor was recovered by the police. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in granting liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor i.e. appellant. 16. Accordingly, we set-aside the direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned award for recovering the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor (appellant). 16. Accordingly, we set-aside the direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned award for recovering the awarded amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor (appellant). The FAFO No. 1260 of 2011 is allowed in above terms. 17. There is no order as to costs.