JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble MEHTA, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., against the common judgment and award dated 13.6.2013 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar whereby the learned Tribunal awarded varying sums of compensation to the claimants in nine claim petitions arising out of a single accident. 3. The accident occurred on 15.2.2011 when a Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. RJ-13-UA-1204 carrying 12 passengers was going from Jhontawali to Khetpal Temple, Rawatsar. The respondent No. 4 Shiv Dutt, the respondent No. 5 Sandeep Kumar and the respondent No. 6 New India Assurance Company were respectively the driver, the owner and the insurer of the jeep. It is alleged that when the jeep reached the link road ahead of Dhaba Jhallar, a tractor with a trolley full of firewood bearing registration No. RJ-05-IR-6185 came from the side lane at a great pace and collided with the jeep. All the passengers sitting in the jeep were injured as a result of the collision. As a consequence of the accident, Rameshwari Devi sitting in the jeep died at the spot. 4. Patram, who was also travelling in the jeep, filed an F.I.R. No. 37/2011 against the tractor driver lqbal Singh. The police after investigation charge-sheeted the tractor driver for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. Nine claim petitions as mentioned above were filed by the occupants of the jeep, one in relation to the death of Rameshwari Devi mother of Patram and others being in relation to the injuries received by the passengers of the jeep for varying amounts of compensation. 5. The driver (Iqbal Singh), owner (Angrej Singh) and the insurance company (appellant herein) of the tractor respectively and the driver (Shiv Dutt), owner (Sandeep Kumar) and insurance company (New India Assurance Company Ltd.,) of the jeep respectively were impleaded as respondents in these claim petitions. 6. 5. The driver (Iqbal Singh), owner (Angrej Singh) and the insurance company (appellant herein) of the tractor respectively and the driver (Shiv Dutt), owner (Sandeep Kumar) and insurance company (New India Assurance Company Ltd.,) of the jeep respectively were impleaded as respondents in these claim petitions. 6. The learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:- ^^1- vk;k fnukad 15-2-2011 dks lqcg 8 cts okds xkao <kck >ykj ds ikl fyad jksM+ ij Fkkuk lwjrx<+ lnj esa cksysjks thi uEcj vkjts- 13 ;w-,M- 1204 ij tkrs oDr VªSDVj la[;k vkj-ts-05 vkbZ-vkj- 6185 ds pkyd bdckyflag }kjk ykijokgh ls okgu pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh ftl ij cksysjks esa lokj jkes'ojh nsoh ds pksVs yxus ds dkj.k ekSds ij gh e`R;q gks xbZ vkSj cksysjks esa lokj vU; lokfj;ksa vatq mQZ vUuq] fxj/kkjhjke lq[keUnjdkSj] irjke] xqYywjke] y{eh] ioudqekj o ljkst ds 'kjhj ij migfr;ka dkfjr gqbZ\ &;kphx.k 2- vk;k VªSDVj Vªkyh vkj-ts- 05 vkbZ-vkj- 6185 dk dsoy d`f"k mi;ksx ds fy, chek Fkk] tcfd cj oDr nq?kZVuk okgu dk mi;ksx d`f"k dk;Z ds fy, ugha fd;k tk jgk Fkk bl dkj.k chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZ dk o fu;eksa dk mYya?ku gksus ls v;kph la- 3 izfrdj vnk;xh dh ftEesokjh ugha gS\ & v;kph la- 3 3- vk;k nq?kZVuk esa vkeus lkeus dh VDdj gksus ls thi pkyd Lo;a dh xyrh o ykijokgh gqbZ blfy, thi ds ekfyd o chek dEiuh Hkh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj vnk;xh ds fy, ftEesnkj gS\ & v;kph la- 3 4- vk;k VªSDVj pkyd v;kph la- 1 ds ikl okgu pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha gksus ls v;kph la- 3 izfrdj vnk;xh dh ftEesokj ugha gS\ & v;kph la- 3 5- vk;k ;fn Dyse ;kfpdk eatwj gksrh gS rks et:c ;kphx.k Lo;a dk e`rd ds okfjlku ;kphx.k fdruk gtkZuk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ & ;kphx.k 6- vuqrks"k\** 7. The issues No. 1, 5 & 6 were decided in favour of the claimants and the claimants were held entitled to compensation. 8. The issues No. 2 & 4 were in relation to the liability of the appellant, the insurer of the tractor in view of his objection regarding the breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. The issues No. 1, 5 & 6 were decided in favour of the claimants and the claimants were held entitled to compensation. 8. The issues No. 2 & 4 were in relation to the liability of the appellant, the insurer of the tractor in view of his objection regarding the breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. The objection taken by the insurance company was that the tractor was insured only for the agricultural purposes whereas at the time of accident, it was being used as a transport vehicle and as such, there was a fundamental breach of policy conditions thereby entitling the insurance company to the defences available under Sec. 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insurance company took a specific plea that a trolley was attached to the tractor and firewood was being transported therein and thus, at the time of accident, the tractor was covered in the definition of a transport vehicle. An objection was also raised regarding the driver of the tractor not having a proper driving license at the time of accident. The driver of the tractor was not having a license to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle was not insured as a transport vehicle, therefore, the insurance company could not be held responsible to satisfy the award in the event of claim being accepted. 9. The plea raised by the tractor owner and driver was that the firewood in question was being carried to the agricultural field of the owner in the tractor trolley for the purpose of personal consumption and thus, the insurance company's stand that the tractor trolley was being used as a transport vehicle was unacceptable. 10. It is relevant to mention here that Angrej Singh, the owner of the tractor, appeared as a witness and admitted in his cross examination that the firewood was being carried in the trolley which was attached to the tractor at the time of the accident. However, he stated that the wood was intended for his personal use at Dhaba Jhallar. 11. The issues No. 2 & 4 were decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the owner (insured) of the tractor in question and against the insurer of the tractor, the appellant herein. 12. However, he stated that the wood was intended for his personal use at Dhaba Jhallar. 11. The issues No. 2 & 4 were decided by the learned Tribunal in favour of the owner (insured) of the tractor in question and against the insurer of the tractor, the appellant herein. 12. The issue No. 3 regarding the accident being caused because of the rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver and thus, the jeep's owner and the insurer being responsible to satisfy the award on the principle of the contributory negligence was decided against the owner and driver of the tractor and in favour of the claimants. 13. Accordingly, whilst accepting the claim applications, the learned Tribunal held the appellant as well as owner & driver of the tractor, jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 14. As the quantum of the award is not indispute, the distribution of amounts to the respective claimants need not be referred to. 15. Shri Vinay Kothari, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the vehicle in question was a tractor and was insured as such. By the attachment of a trolley to the tractor, the character of the vehicle assumed a charge and it became a transport vehicle, the moment, a trailer or trolley was attached thereto. The tractor if driven on a public road assumes the character of a transport vehicle. He submitted that the driver of the tractor was not having a license to ply a transport vehicle. Furthermore, the tractor in question was not insured as a transport vehicle. He placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 3428 in support of his contention. 16. He also referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Balwan Singh vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (MAC. APP. 741/2011) dated 6.2.2012 wherein reliance was placed on the Notification No. 1248(E) dated 5.11.2004 issued by the Central Government categorising the various kinds of the transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles. He submitted that as per Clause (vii) of the said notification, the tractors being used on the public roads have been brought in thee category of the transport vehicles. 17. 741/2011) dated 6.2.2012 wherein reliance was placed on the Notification No. 1248(E) dated 5.11.2004 issued by the Central Government categorising the various kinds of the transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles. He submitted that as per Clause (vii) of the said notification, the tractors being used on the public roads have been brought in thee category of the transport vehicles. 17. Therefore, he urged that the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally with the owner and driver of the tractor because it is a clear case of breach of policy conditions. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 19. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned award as well as the record. 20. The short question which has been raised before this Court for consideration is as to whether the rejection of the objection and defence of the appellant insurance company regarding the tractor being used as a transport vehicle was just and proper? and consequently, whether the prayer of the appellant insurance company for exoneration from the liability to satisfy the award on the basis of defence of breach of policy conditions, can be accepted? 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh (supra) was dealing with a case relating to the taxation of vehicles. However, whilst deciding the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of differentiation between a light motor vehicle and transport vehicle. Whilst making a comparative analysis of the definitions of various categories of vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held as below:- "13. The question still remains as to whether the taxation authority was right in categorizing tractor-trailer as a separate assessable entity and whether that authority was right in calling upon the appellant to obtain permit under Section 66 of the M.V. Act, 1988. In order to answer this issue, we have to examine briefly section 2, which is the definition section in the M.V. Act, 1988. In that connection, we reproduce herein below the following: 2. In order to answer this issue, we have to examine briefly section 2, which is the definition section in the M.V. Act, 1988. In that connection, we reproduce herein below the following: 2. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (14) "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods; (28) "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres; (44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry and load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller; (46) "trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle; (47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer" is separately defined under Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under section 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is defined in section 2 (44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading of the aforesaid definitions under section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. A combined reading of the aforesaid definitions under section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under section 2 (47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988." 22. Dealing with the various definitions set out in Sections 2(14), 2(44), 2(46) & 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held that the tractor defined in Section 2(44) means a motor vehicle which in itself is not constructed to carry any load. It is only when a trailer or trolley is attached thereto, it assumes the character of goods carriage within the meaning of Section 2(14) and as a consequence thereof, it would be covered under the definition of transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the Act. 23. Thus, the issue is no longer res-integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court though dealing with the taxation matter examined the relevant definitions of the Motor Vehicles Act and in no unequivocal terms held that a tractor trailer would constitute a goods carriage under Section 2(14) and consequently, it would fall in the category of a transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(47). The test applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in a case, when a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it has to be assumed that it is modified for the carriage of goods. 24. Independently examined, the relevancy of this interpretation in relation to an accident case is apparent. The test applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in a case, when a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it has to be assumed that it is modified for the carriage of goods. 24. Independently examined, the relevancy of this interpretation in relation to an accident case is apparent. The Motor Vehicles Act has prescribed different categories of licenses for light motor vehicles (in which a tractor is covered) and for a transport vehicle. The validity of a license issued for driving a light motor vehicle can be upto 20 years whereas a license for driving a transport vehicle is only valid for a period of three years and has to be renewed thereafter. 25. What evolves from the aforesaid scenario is that the framers of the Act foresaw that a person driving a transport vehicle would require a greater expertise, precision and strength as compared to a person driving a light motor vehicle. 26. The logic given by the learned Tribunal regarding the tractor trolley being used for transporting firewood for personal use would hardly be of any relevance because the important question is as regards the expertise of the driver to drive the transport vehicle and the premium payable for insuring the same. The moment a vehicle falls in the category of the transport vehicle, the premium payable for the insurance thereof would be more than that payable for insuring a light motor vehicle. As the liability of the insurance company is undisputedly relative to the premium received by it, the aforesaid facts are significant. 27. Thus, in both the situations i.e. (1) When a driver is having a license to drive a light motor vehicle and while driving a transport vehicle, he causes an accident and (2) when such a vehicle which is insured as light motor vehicle is adapted to carry the goods, then it assumes the character of a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act, there would be a breach of policy condition. 28. Resultantly, the insurance company, if asked to cover such a vehicle would charge higher premium so as to cover the risk involving a transport vehicle as well. 29. The notification No. 1248(E) dated 5.11.2004 which was relied upon by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case takes the situation even a step further. 28. Resultantly, the insurance company, if asked to cover such a vehicle would charge higher premium so as to cover the risk involving a transport vehicle as well. 29. The notification No. 1248(E) dated 5.11.2004 which was relied upon by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case takes the situation even a step further. In the said notification, a tractor being plied on the public road has been brought in the category of transport vehicle. In the case at hand also the tractor with the trolley attached was admittedly being plied on the public road when it met with the accident. Thus, otherwise also, it fell within the category of transport vehicle. 30. As per the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in para No. 28 of the award, the driver lqbal Singh was having a license to drive a tractor. The license admittedly was not issued for driving a transport vehicle. Therefore, both the conditions of the insurance policy, viz., (1) the driver of the vehicle to possess a proper license to drive a transport vehicle and (2) the vehicle to be insured as a transport vehicle, have been breached in the case. 31. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in holding that as at the time the accident happened, the insured vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions entitling the appellant insurance company to be exonerated from the joint and several liability to satisfy the award as directed by the Tribunal. 32. In the case of Ram Kumar vs. Mangal Chand & Ors. decided on 28.11.2013 passed in SBCMA No. 842/2009, this Court considered a catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the effect of breach of policy conditions and held that when there is a breach of policy conditions, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. 33. Resultantly, these appeals deserves to be accepted and are hereby allowed. The direction issued by the learned Tribunal holding the insurance company jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award alongside the owner and driver of the insured vehicle, is hereby quashed. However, applying the proposition of pay and recover postulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 ACJ 1, the initial burden to satisfy the award is placed on the insurance company. However, applying the proposition of pay and recover postulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 ACJ 1, the initial burden to satisfy the award is placed on the insurance company. The insurance company after satisfying the awards shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner/insured of the tractor by filing execution proceedings directly before the learned Tribunal. 34. No cost. 35. Let a copy of this order be placed in all the connected appeals.