JUDGMENT : P.G.M. Patil, J. 1. The insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.08.2013 passed in MVC No. 1262/2011 by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi has filed this appeal. 2. The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that on 08.03.2011 at about 2.30 p.m. the deceased Bharma Kallappa Chougule after loading Sugar Crane in the tractor and trailer bearing registration No. KA-23/TA-1679, MH-09/AL-758, MH-09/AL-759 was proceeding from Idaragunchi towards Hemaraj Factory, Yamakanamaradi , near the land of Shivaji Patil of Naganur Village, at up gradient road, the driver asked the deceased to put a stone to the front side wheel of the tractor and trailer and while putting the stone to the said wheel of the tractor and trailer No. KA-23/TA-1679, MH-09/AL-758, MH-09/AL-759, the driver suddenly drove the vehicle without noticing the fact that the deceased was putting a stone to the front wheel of the tractor and trailer, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. The wife and the minor children of the deceased filed the said claim petition claiming compensation against the owner and insurer of the offending tractor and trailer. 3. In pursuance to the notice, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 appeared before the tribunal and filed their written statements. Respondent No. 1 filed objections stating that the petitioners have to prove the income of the deceased and the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant. Further contended that the accident is not due to negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No. 1. The vehicle in question being insured with the respondent No. 2 and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against him. Further, respondent No. 2 has filed written statement contending that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. It is also contended that the petitioners in collusion with respondent No. 1 got registered a false case of accident. There is no nexus between the death of the deceased Bharam K. Chougule and the accident. Respondent No. 1 violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy in allowing the deceased to travel in the tractor and trailer and hence, respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. There is no nexus between the death of the deceased Bharam K. Chougule and the accident. Respondent No. 1 violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy in allowing the deceased to travel in the tractor and trailer and hence, respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. In support of their claim petition, the claimants were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and got marked 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. Per contra, the respondent insurance company has produced insurance policy at Ex.R.1 and no oral evidence was produced. The tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the judgment, awarding compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit in the Court. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation. 5. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal on the grounds that the tribunal has grossly erred in mulcting the liability on the insurer in spite of the fact that the deceased sustained fatal injuries in view of the traveling on the engine of the tractor before reaching the place of the accident. The tribunal has grossly erred in passing the liability on the appellant in spite of the fact that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 7. A short question which arise for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant has made out grounds to set aside the liability fastened against him. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant insurer vehemently submitted that the deceased traveled in the tractor and trailer immediately before occurrence of the accident and therefore, he was traveling in tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, his risk is not covered under the policy. The deceased was not supposed to obey the words of the driver, who asked him to put stone below the wheel of the tractor. Therefore, the liability saddled against the appellant insurer liable to be set aside. 9. The deceased was not supposed to obey the words of the driver, who asked him to put stone below the wheel of the tractor. Therefore, the liability saddled against the appellant insurer liable to be set aside. 9. The learned counsel further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as required under Section 10 of the MV. Act. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that in any case 50% liability should be fastened against the deceased due to his contributory negligence in causing the accident. 11. Per contra the learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment in the case of Narasamma and Others vs. M. Saibaba and Another, (2004) ACJ 1608 and submitted that the at the time of the accident, the deceased was not traveling in the tractor and trailer and when the accident occurred he was ceased to be passenger in the said vehicle and therefore, at the time of the accident he was a third party and he is entitled to claim petition against the insurer and the insurer cannot avoid his liability. 12. The appellant insurer contended before the tribunal that deceased was traveling in the tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger and that there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. On this contention, issue No. 3 was framed before the tribunal placing burden on the respondent No. 2 to prove that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger and therefore, there is violation of policy condition. However, the respondent No. 2 did not produce any evidence in order to prove this issue and tribunal has recorded the finding on this issue against the insurer. 13. The averments in the claim petition and also the averments in the complaint goes to show that when the accident occurred, the deceased was trying to put stone below the wheel of the tractor and that time the driver of the tractor suddenly moved the vehicle which ran over the deceased and caused fatal injuries, due to which the deceased died on the spot. of course, there is a mention in the claim petition and also in the complaint that on the date of the accident the deceased after loading the sugar cane was traveling in the tractor and trailer and only when the driver of the tractor requested him to put a stone below the wheel as the road was up gradient, the deceased got down from the tractor and trailer and while he was trying to put stone below the wheel of the tractor the accident occurred. Under the similar circumstances, in the case of Narasamma and Others referred supra, Division Bench of this Court has held in para 8 as follows: 8. What we have found in the present incident is that the injuries did not take place in the process of alighting as was the case in the reported decision which we have referred to, even though at the point of time when the injury had been sustained by the lady who was alighting from the bus, she had lost physical contact with the bus. What we find very clearly in the present incident is that the deceased was an old man and that he was not the only person getting out of the truck. He was the last of the persons who had alighted and it is fully established that the cleaner had given a signal to the driver to start off without taking the precaution of giving the person who had alighted sufficient time to get clear of the vehicle. It was precisely because of this negligent act that the moment the vehicle moved it hit the deceased who had severed the connection with the vehicle, that he was thrown down and that was how his legs were run over by the rear wheels. In this background, what clearly emerges on facts is that the process of alighting, as far as this case is concerned, had concluded and that the injuries resulted immediately thereafter. In this background, what clearly emerges on facts is that the process of alighting, as far as this case is concerned, had concluded and that the injuries resulted immediately thereafter. We are conscious of the submission canvassed by the learned Counsel who represents the Insurance Company when he contends that if this Court has taken the view in several cases including the one referred to by us, that a person alighting from a vehicle continues in the status of a passenger during the process of alighting and that this principle necessarily presupposes that the Court will extend the status for a reasonable period of time after the party has left the inside of the vehicle. We need to draw a distinction between those cases and the present one where the process of alighting has concluded, and in our considered view, from the precise and very point of time where the status of a passenger has also ended. If the vehicle has started moving too quickly or if the vehicle has moved in a direction whereby the person who has alighted has no chance of getting out of the way as has happened in the present case, then it is a clear-cut case of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. It is for these reasons and in this background that we uphold the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants that on the peculiar and special facts of the present case negligence of the driver of the truck has been established and, furthermore, that even assuming he had travelled as a passenger in a goods vehicle, that had the injuries occurred in the course of that journey or in other words as long as that status continues that he would have been disqualified from the compensation, whereas in the view which this Court has taken, that the liability can certainly be enforced. Therefore, in that case also, the contention of the insurer was that the deceased traveled in the goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger and at the time of alighting from the lorry, the accident occurred and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation against the insurer. 14. Therefore, in that case also, the contention of the insurer was that the deceased traveled in the goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger and at the time of alighting from the lorry, the accident occurred and therefore, the claimants are not entitled for compensation against the insurer. 14. The Division Bench of this Court has expressly held that it is necessary to draw the distinction between those cases where the accident occurred, while the deceased was traveling in the goods vehicle and where the accident occurred after the passenger alighting, he ceases to be a passenger in the vehicle. It has been held that person alighting from the vehicle continue in the status of passenger during the process of alighting and that this principle necessarily presupposes that the Court will extend the status for a reasonable period of time after the party has left the inside of the vehicle. Therefore, in the present case also the moment when the deceased got down from the tractor and trailer he ceased to be the passenger traveling in the tractor and trailer and therefore, deceased has to be held as a third party, who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. Under these circumstances, decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant insurer on the aspect that the deceased was traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor and trailer and therefore, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the liability of the insured cannot be considered. 15. The facts stated in the above case are similar to the facts in the case on hand and therefore, by applying the said principle in this case also this Court holds that at the time of accident the deceased was not traveling as an unauthorized passenger in the tractor and trailer and that he has to be treated as third party when the accident occurred. Therefore, the contention of the insurer that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the grounds that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 16. Therefore, the contention of the insurer that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the grounds that the deceased was traveling in the tractor and trailer as an unauthorized passenger has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. 16. So far as the contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle is concerned, the appellant insurer though has contended so in his written statement, has not adduced any evidence in order to prove this contention before the tribunal at the time of hearing of the petition. No issue was framed before the tribunal on this aspect. Admittedly, the insurer has not entered witness box in order to prove this contention. Burden is on the insurer to prove his contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, this contention of the insurer also cannot be accepted. 17. The learned counsel for the insurer made an attempt to persuade this Court that at least 50% of the liability against the deceased may be saddled on him for having contributed negligence towards accident. This submission has no merit and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected. The point for consideration is answered accordingly. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The appeal is hereby dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith.