JUDGMENT : 1. The Appeal questions validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dt.29.1.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhandara in M.A.C.P. No.154 of 2002. Compensation was claimed in the sum of Rs. Two Lakhs. It was ordered to be paid by respondents nos.1 to 4 (appellants herein) together with interest at the rate of Rs.9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation inclusive of the ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Respondent no.5/Insurance company was exonerated. 2. Facts briefly stated are as under : On 26.4.2002, at about 1.30 to 2.00 p.m., Bhanudas Kisan Goswami, aged about 34 years, a labourer by occupation resident of village Shenda, Tahasil Sadak Arjuni, District Gondia started on Tractor bearing registration no. MH-35/5666 attached with Trolley from Village Surtoli to Shenda. It was driven by Bhagwat Gosuji Dongarwar rashly and negligently in a high speed within limits of village Shenda. Bhanudas fell down from tractor trolley and died on the spot. Insurer/Company had denied it's liability to pay compensation contending that the deceased was not a labourer at the relevant time and that the driver of the tractor trolley was not holding valid driving license. It was contended that Toliram Kapgate was driving the tractor trolley from Surtoli to Pandharwani with 15 to 20 gratuitous passengers boarded without permission of the driver. Deceased had taken a jump from the trolley, fell on the road, sustained brain haemorrhage and died on the spot and that it was not the case of driver’s negligence. Alternatively, it is submitted that the Insurer/Company is liable to pay the sum of compensation. National Insurance Company resisted the claim and denied liability to compensate. It is contended that the driver of the Tractor-trolley was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 3. The Tribunal believed the evidence of Dipak Shankarrao Bante (PW-2) at Exh.44, who deposed that the Tractor was driven in a high speed on an uneven road resulting in Bhanudas falling down from the tractor–trolley. The witness resident of the spot hardly 100 meter away from the accident spot was found natural and probable and his evidence was consistent with the Morgue intimation/report (Exh.36). The witness resident of the spot hardly 100 meter away from the accident spot was found natural and probable and his evidence was consistent with the Morgue intimation/report (Exh.36). Evidence of Respondent no.3 (DW-2) was found untrustworthy and post-occurrence version in respect of Bhanudas jumping down from the Tractor trolley as he admitted in his examination-in-chief shows that his attention was attracted when the inmates raised the cries. The Tribunal found that victim Bhanudas died in vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor–trolley motor vehicle bearing registration no.Mh-35/B-8842 and trolley bearing registration no. MH-35/5666 and compensation was awarded in the sum of Rs. Two Lakhs together with 9% interest from the date of the claim application till realisation. 4. As to the quantum of compensation, income of Bhanudas was assumed as Rs.1500/- per month = Rs 18,000/- per year, deducting one-third amount towards self-expenses, loss of dependency was Rs.12,000/- per year x 17 as multiplier = Rs.2,04,000/- for the dependents as he was a labourer by occupation. The Tribunal awarded funeral and transporting expenses in the sum of Rs.4000/- and loss of consortium as Rs.5000/- and towards loss of affection to claimants in the sum of Rs 4000/-. Thus, total sum of Rs.2,17,000/- was awarded as compensation together with interest at the rate of Rs 9% per annum. 5. Driver as well as owner of the offending motor vehicle Tractor-Trolley were held jointly and severally liable to compensate the claimants in view of vicarious liability of owner. Though the offending motor vehicle were insured as per Exh.43/policy, it did not cover the risk to Bhanudas, who was one of the person from the marriage party travelling by the Tractor-Trolley at the time of the accident. When several persons are allowed to board the Tractor-Trolley and travel as a marriage party, the risk is that of the owner and driver of the offending motor vehicle to compensate the victim if the accident occurs. Insurer in such case of unlawful user is not liable for an act done in clear breach of the Insurance policy-contract. 6. No grievance was made about the quantum of compensation nor was any cross objection raised by cross-appeal on behalf of the claimants-dependents of the victim. Impugned Judgment and award is sustainable. No interference is warranted in the impugned Judgment and Award. Hence the appeal is dismissed with costs.