JUDGMENT : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) has been preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment of the Claims Tribunal in proceedings under Section 166 of the said Act whereby they have been held entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- from the driver of the offending vehicle after exonerating the insurer of the vehicle. 2. The facts in brief are that the son of the claimants Manoj was doing the business of purchase of goats and sale of meat. On 30/11/1998 said Manoj boarded a jeep which was owned by respondent No.1 herein and was insured with the respondent No.3. Said vehicle was being driven by respondent No.2. The jeep met with an accident and turned turtle resulting in fatal injuries to Manoj. Hence compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- was sought under provisions of Section 166 of the said Act. In the written statement filed by the owner of the vehicle, it was pleaded that the driver of the vehicle had been specifically instructed not to carry passengers or permit any goods to be transported. In breach of those instructions the driver had carried passengers. Hence no liability could be saddled on the owner. The driver of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company in its written statement pleaded that the vehicle insured was registered as a private vehicle and had a sitting capacity of 9 + 1. Transportation of animals and excess passengers was not permissible under the policy. It was thus pleaded that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Before the Claims Tribunal the parties led evidence. The claimant No.1 examined herself and the owner of the vehicle also entered the witness box. After considering that evidence on record the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle in breach of specific instructions issued by the owner of the vehicle had carried excess passengers as well as animals therein. Since this act of the driver was beyond the scope of employment of the driver, the owner was not liable for the act of the driver. The owner of the vehicle and consequently the Insurance Company were exonerated. Compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- was directed to be paid by the driver of the vehicle. Being aggrieved the claimants have filed the present appeal. 4. The owner of the vehicle and consequently the Insurance Company were exonerated. Compensation of Rs. 1,63,000/- was directed to be paid by the driver of the vehicle. Being aggrieved the claimants have filed the present appeal. 4. Shri Madhur Deo, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Claims Tribunal erred in exonerating the owner as well as the Insurance Company from satisfying the liability. There was no breach of policy and the owner was vicariously liable for the act of the driver. He submitted that the accident took place during the course of employment of said driver. The driver was authorised to drive the vehicle and merely because some excess passengers were carried in the vehicle, the same would not result in holding that the owner of the vehicle was not vicariously liable. Since the jeep was being driven for the business of the owner he was vicariously liable. Any excess act done by the driver while carrying out instructions of the owner would not be sufficient to exonerate the owner. For said purpose the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs. Santanuprasad Jaishanker Bhatt, AIR 1966 SC 1697 , Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi and ors. vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. And anr., AIR 1977 SC 1735 , State of Maharashtra and ors. vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke and ors., AIR 1995 SC 2499 , Maimuna Begum wd/o Abdul Razzaque and ors. vs. Taju s/o Ahmed Khan and ors., (1989) MhLJ 352, Inderjeet Singh and Co. vs. Kamal Prakash Pawar and ors., (1988) MhLJ 863, Jankibai Laxman Dhoke and ors. vs. Ramesh Laxmanrao Uike and ors., (2004) 5 MhLJ 437 and Pirthi Singh and anr. vs. Binda Ram and ors., (1987) AIR(P&H) 56. It was then submitted that even if there was a breach of policy the same was not so fundamental so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. Under said policy nine passengers besides the driver were permitted to be carried. Mere fact that some more passengers came to be carried could result in breach of the policy but said breach was not so fundamental so as to exonerate the Insurance Company. In that regard the learned counsel referred to the decisions in Lakshmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 and Manjeet Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And anr., (2018) 2 SCC 108 . In that regard the learned counsel referred to the decisions in Lakshmi Chand vs. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 and Manjeet Singh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And anr., (2018) 2 SCC 108 . It was further submitted that the amount of compensation as awarded was inadequate and the same was liable to be enhanced. The monthly income of the deceased was taken on a lower side and by applying an incorrect multiplier, lessor total amount of compensation was granted. For purposes of enhancement in the amount of compensation the learned counsel relied upon decisions in Sube Singh and anr. vs. Shyam Singh (dead) and ors., (2018) 5 MhLJ 581 and Jagdish vs. Mohan and ors., (2018) 4 SCC 571 . It was thus submitted that by enhancing the amount of compensation, the Insurance Company should also be made liable. 5. Shri M. P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the judgment of the Claims Tribunal. Referring to the special instructions at Exhibit-57 given by the owner to the driver it was submitted that the act of the driver of carrying the excess passengers and animals in the jeep was beyond the authority given to the said driver. The owner could not be held liable to pay the compensation in these circumstances as the act of the servant was beyond the scope of employment. No objection was raised to the exhibiting of the document at Exhibit-57 and hence its contents stood proved. Reliance was placed on the decision in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia vs. Subodh Mody, (2008) 6 MhLJ 886 in that regard. It was then submitted that the Claims Tribunal rightly exonerated the owner from the liability considering the serious breach of policy condition. According to him an offence was registered against the driver of the vehicle and hence in view of the law laid down in Maimuna Begum wd/o Abdul Razzaque and ors., (1989) MhLJ 352, the owner was rightly exonerated. He sought to distinguish the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. Without prejudice to these contentions it was submitted that if it was found that the owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable for the acts of his driver then in view of the fact the insurance policy was in force, the Insurance Policy was also liable. Without prejudice to these contentions it was submitted that if it was found that the owner of the vehicle was vicariously liable for the acts of his driver then in view of the fact the insurance policy was in force, the Insurance Policy was also liable. He also submitted that the prayer for enhancement in the amount of compensation be considered in accordance with the settled legal position. 6. Shri M. M. Kalar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 also supported the impugned judgment. He referred to the insurance policy and the First Information Report to indicate excess number of passengers travelling therein. The ratio of the judgments taken into consideration by the Claims Tribunal were rightly applied and it was urged that the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal did not call for any interference. 7. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether the Claims Tribunal was legally correct in exonerating the owner as well as Insurance Company from its liability ? (ii) Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation ? 8. To prove the claim for compensation the claimant No.1 examined herself at Exhibit-45. She was not an eye witness to the accident. She stated that her son was earning Rs. 6000/- per month from sale of mutton. In her cross-examination she stated that her son was sitting in the vehicle as a passenger and that about 17-18 persons were already sitting therein. The owner of the vehicle was examined at Exhibit-56. He deposed that the driver of the vehicle had a valid license and the said driver was working with him since 01/11/1998. He deposed that he had instructed the driver in writing as regards the manner in which the vehicle was to be operated. That document was at Exhibit-57. In his cross-examination he stated that the salary being paid to the driver or the amount of overtime was not mentioned in Exhibit-57 nor was it executed on any stamp paper. He denied the suggestion that said document was ante-dated. He also admitted that he used to give lift to persons with whom he was acquainted. The document at Exhibit-57 is dated 01/11/1998 in which it is stated that the respondent No.2 in the claim petition had been appointed as a driver on the jeep. He denied the suggestion that said document was ante-dated. He also admitted that he used to give lift to persons with whom he was acquainted. The document at Exhibit-57 is dated 01/11/1998 in which it is stated that the respondent No.2 in the claim petition had been appointed as a driver on the jeep. Amongst various instructions mentioned therein, it was stated that he would not permit passengers either gratuitous or fare paying to sit in the jeep. This document is signed by the owner and below it there is an endorsement bearing the signature of the driver. The Claims Tribunal while exonerating the Insurance Company has referred to this document and has held that since the owner of the vehicle had given specific instructions to the driver against carrying passengers, the act of the driver was outside the scope of his employment. The owner was therefore not liable for the said act of the driver of carrying passengers. It was thus held that the owner could not be held liable and consequently the Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability. 9. It is therefore necessary to first consider the effect of said document at Exhibit-57. By the said document, the owner of the jeep is stated to have instructed his driver as to the manner in which the jeep was to be operated. Admittedly it is only the owner of the vehicle who was examined and the driver of the jeep was not examined. On behalf of the appellant it is urged that though such instructions may have been given by the owner of the vehicle, the same would not operate against the driver inasmuch as he was not examined before the Claims Tribunal and contents of that document would be inadmissible against him. On the other hand the owner of the vehicle has relied upon the instructions given by that document. In Sitaram Motilal Kalal (supra) a statement made by one of the defendants before the Police Authorities was sought to be relied upon while raising the plea as regards breach of instructions given to the driver. In that case the vehicle in question was given to the second defendant for being plied as a taxi. The second defendant handed it over to the third defendant for taking a driving test to obtain a driver's license. In that case the vehicle in question was given to the second defendant for being plied as a taxi. The second defendant handed it over to the third defendant for taking a driving test to obtain a driver's license. In an accident caused by the third defendant, injuries were caused to three persons and hence compensation was claimed from the owner as well as driver of the vehicle. In those proceedings the second defendant made a statement before the Police Authorities that the third defendant was a servant. In that context it was observed that admission of a document would mean admission of facts contained in the document. If the truth of the statements made in the document was not tested in any manner, admitting them would be prejudicial to the other side. It was held that the contents of said document were not admissible against the owner of the vehicle. The said document was thus excluded from consideration. In the present case though Exhibit-57 is addressed to the driver of the vehicle he has not been examined to ascertain that such instructions were specifically given to him. There was no opportunity for the claimants to question the driver with regard to receipt of those instructions. Infact, the said driver remained absent in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. At the highest it could be said that the owner of the vehicle had proved that the document at Exhibit-57 was written and signed by him. Whether those instructions were actually given to the driver and whether he accepted the same has not been tested. Therefore, the contents of Exhibit-57 cannot be held against the claimants in absence of any opportunity for them to cross-examine the driver. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law as laid down in Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia (supra) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The question is with regard to the evidentiary value to be given to that document and it is found that Exhibit-57 cannot be used against the claimants. That document therefore will have to be excluded from consideration. 10. The law with regard to vicarious liability of the master with regard to acts of his servant has been referred to in various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. That document therefore will have to be excluded from consideration. 10. The law with regard to vicarious liability of the master with regard to acts of his servant has been referred to in various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. In Sitaram Motilal Kalal (supra) it was held that for holding the master vicariously liable it was essential that the wrong act was committed by the servant during the course of employment. The scope of employment does not deserve to be viewed narrowly and if an act authorised by the master is done wrongly or there is a wrongful or unauthorised mode of doing the act authorised by the master, the liability of the master cannot be excluded. In Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi (supra) it was held that for the master's liability to arise, the test was whether the act was done on the owner's business or that it was proved to have been impliedly authorised by the owner. Unless the act is done in the course of employment, the servant's act does not make the master liable. It was further observed that the recent trend in law was to make the master liable for acts which did not strictly fall within the terms "in the course of employment" as ordinarily understood. In Kanchanmala Vijaysingh Shirke and ors. (supra) it was observed that if it is found that the accident took place when the act authorised was being performed in a mode which was not proper but nonetheless it was directly connected with the course of employment and it was not an independent act which had no nexus or connection with the business of the master, the liability could not be excluded. The aforesaid law has been followed in Jankibai Laxman Dhoke and ors. (supra). The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pirthi Singh and anr. (supra) has held that the determining factor was whether the accident was committed by the driver in the course of employment. The fact that the driver had acted in contravention of instructions of the owner or in violation of statutory rules was irrelevant. In Inderjeet Singh and Co. (supra) it was held that if the servant acting in the course of his employment is negligent, the owner would be liable. The fact that the driver had acted in contravention of instructions of the owner or in violation of statutory rules was irrelevant. In Inderjeet Singh and Co. (supra) it was held that if the servant acting in the course of his employment is negligent, the owner would be liable. Moreover, when the driver with the owner's consent drives the car on the owner's business or for the owner's purpose, such liability would also arise. Thus from the aforesaid decisions it is clear that even when an authorised act is done in an unauthorised manner, the vicarious liability of the owner would not be extinguished. Heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the judgment of the Division Bench in Maimuna Begum (supra). In that case a truck which was a goods vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 under which there was a prohibition to carry passengers met with an accident resulting in death of a person who was being carried as a passenger. It was held in the aforesaid backdrop that since carrying of passengers in a goods vehicle itself was an offence punishable under Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and irrespective of the fact that the vehicle was being driven in the regular course of employment, carrying passengers was beyond the scope of employment and was a criminal act. In that context it was held that the owner could not be held vicariously liable when the driver had done an unauthorised criminal act. In the present case as per the insurance policy at Exhibit-57 it is seen that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 1+9. Thus carrying of nine passengers in the said jeep was permissible and by carrying such passengers it cannot be said that the driver committed any criminal act. Though according to the owner of the vehicle the number of passengers carried were 17-18, that would be an aspect in relation to breach of policy conditions and would not be a criminal act. Thus in absence of any criminal act being committed by the driver in the present case, the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. 11. It is thus held that the contents of Exhibit-57 cannot be held to operate against the claimants. Thus in absence of any criminal act being committed by the driver in the present case, the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. 11. It is thus held that the contents of Exhibit-57 cannot be held to operate against the claimants. For that reason the instructions stated therein cannot be used against them to defeat their claim. Similarly, as carrying of nine passengers was permissible under the policy at Exhibit-58, the alleged breach committed by the driver is not of a criminal nature and hence the act of operating the jeep being an act authorised by the owner but was done in an unauthorised manner, the owner would be vicariously liable for that act. As regards breach of policy conditions as held by the Claims Tribunal, it is well settled in the light of the law as laid down in Lakshmi Chand and Manjeet Singh (supra) that the Insurance Company has to establish its defence with regard to breach of policy conditions. Not only has it has to establish that there is a breach of policy but such breach has to be so fundamental that it puts an end to the contract and that such breach had caused the accident. These relevant aspects are conspicuously missing in the present case. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence to prove that the breach in the form of carrying some excess passengers was so fundamental in nature that it resulted in causing the accident and thus putting an end to the policy itself. Hence the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that there was a breach of policy cannot be sustained. The said finding is set aside. Point No.(i) is accordingly answered by holding that the Claims Tribunal was not legally correct in exonerating the owner and the Insurance Company from its liability. 12. On the aspect of entitlement to just and fair compensation, the material on record indicates that there is no definite evidence as to the actual income being earned by the deceased. Hence notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month can be taken into consideration. By adding 40% thereto towards future prospects monthly income would be Rs. 4200/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor 50% of that amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Monthly loss of income to the family would be Rs. Hence notional income of Rs. 3000/- per month can be taken into consideration. By adding 40% thereto towards future prospects monthly income would be Rs. 4200/- per month. Since the deceased was a bachelor 50% of that amount has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Monthly loss of income to the family would be Rs. 2100/- and the annual loss would therefore be Rs. 25,200/-. Considering the age of the deceased, the multiplier applicable would be 18. This would give a figure of Rs. 4,53,600/-. Towards conventional heads an amount of Rs. 70,000/- would be admissible in view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). The total compensation is thus rounded to Rs. 5,20,000/-. This would include the amount towards no-fault liability. Point No.(ii) is answered accordingly. 13. Hence for the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. (I) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is set aside. (II) It is held that the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,20,000/- including the amount granted under no-fault liability. (III) The respondents would be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim. The balance amount of compensation shall be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. (IV) First Appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.