JUDGMENT Arun D. Upadhye, J. (Oral) - This first appeal is filed by the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 11/09/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.27/2006. 2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 3. This first appeal was admitted on 10/07/2009 and was waiting for its turn for final hearing. Today, the matter is called out for final hearing. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 at length. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred while granting compensation, as there is a breach of policy. The driver was not holding valid licence at the time of accident. He has also submitted that the deceased was 22 years old and unmarried at the time of accident. However, personal expenses were deducted as one-third instead of one-half. He, therefore, prayed that the first appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 has submitted that the driver was having valid licence of light motor vehicle and therefore, there is no breach of policy, though he was driving matador. The learned Tribunal has considered this fact and rightly granted compensation. He has also submitted that there are five dependents on the deceased and therefore, personal expenses should have been deducted as one-fourth instead of one-third. He, therefore, prayed that the first appeal be dismissed. 6. Considering the learned Counsel for both sides and having gone through the impugned judgment and award and the material placed on record, it appears that the respondent nos.1 to 5/ original claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation. The claimants have contended that an accident took place on 9/4/2006 at about 5:30 p.m. near village Jimalgatta, Sironcha to Aheri road within the jurisdiction of Jimalgatta police station. According to them, the deceased was travelling by matador bearing registration No.MH33/ 3076 from Dechlipetha to Aheri. The said matador was owned by respondent no.6 and was insured with appellant/Insurance Company at the relevant time. The claimants were depending upon the deceased. According to them, the deceased was travelling by matador bearing registration No.MH33/ 3076 from Dechlipetha to Aheri. The said matador was owned by respondent no.6 and was insured with appellant/Insurance Company at the relevant time. The claimants were depending upon the deceased. The driver of the said matador was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle. The offence was registered against him with Police Station Jimalgatta, District Gadchiroli under Sections 279, 337, 304A of Indian Penal Code. It is further contended that the deceased was 22 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Hamal as well as conductor with the owner of the vehicle. He was earning Rs. 100 /- to Rs. 200 /- per day. The calculated amount of compensation is to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 /-. Hence, this claim petition. 7. The owner of the vehicle has filed his written statement at Exh.16 and he denied the contentions made in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed its written statement at Exh.21 and denied all adverse allegations made in the petition. According to the Insurance Company, the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle/matador illegally, which is contrary to the policy conditions as the vehicle was goods carrier vehicle. It is also contended that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective licence at the relevant time and therefore, there is a breach of policy. Lastly, it is submitted that the claim petition be dismissed. 9. After framing necessary issues and after recording evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award and granted compensation, as referred above. From perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, following points arise for my consideration and I record my findings thereon with reasons as under: POINTS FINDINGS (1) Whether the impugned judgment and award dated 11/9/2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gadchiroli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.27/2006 requires interference of this Court ? .......No. (2) What order ? .......As per final order. REASONS 10. As to point Nos.1 and 2 :After hearing both sides and having gone through the impugned judgment and award and the material placed on record, I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court is called for. .......No. (2) What order ? .......As per final order. REASONS 10. As to point Nos.1 and 2 :After hearing both sides and having gone through the impugned judgment and award and the material placed on record, I am of the considered view that no interference of this Court is called for. The oral evidence of Smt. Rinkubai mother of the deceased is corroborated by the documentary evidence on record, i.e., Exhs.34 to 40. There is no dispute that the accident took place on 9/4/2006 and the deceased Ramesh died in the said accident. It is also not disputed that the offending vehicle was involved in that accident and was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company at the relevant time. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company is that there is a breach of policy and therefore, the Tribunal erred while granting the compensation. It is to be noted that though the defence is taken by the Insurance Company but no evidence is adduced to that effect. On the contrary, the evidence on record shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid licence of light motor vehicle and therefore, there is no breach of policy. 11. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 (Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ) has observed that a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of light motor vehicle as provided in Section 10 (2) (d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle. The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted that there is a breach of policy. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon the judgments, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Asha Rani and others] , (2003) 2 SCC 339 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and others] and 2010 SCC 477 [Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Nagpur vs. Kamalabai Mukunda Kumare and others] . 13. Ltd vs. Asha Rani and others] , (2003) 2 SCC 339 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy and others] and 2010 SCC 477 [Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Nagpur vs. Kamalabai Mukunda Kumare and others] . 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case all these judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the case at hand. 14. The Tribunal has considered the oral evidence adduced by the claimants and recorded the finding that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle and was working as Hamal/conductor with respondent no.6 owner of the vehicle. The said fact is not denied by the Insurance Company. Moreover, no evidence is adduced by the Insurance Company. The insurance cover-note on record at Exh.54 also indicates that additional payment of Rs. 100/is made towards legal liability of employee/driver and therefore, the deceased was covered under the said insurance policy. The Tribunal, therefore, has not committed any error while granting the compensation. 15. As regards the personal expenses deducted by the Tribunal are concerned, one-third amount is deducted though the deceased was bachelor, but the claimants are five in number and therefore, the Tribunal was justified while deducting one-third amount. The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have deducted one-half amount for personal expenses, therefore, cannot be accepted. 16. After considering the submissions of the respective sides and after perusal of the material placed on record, I am of the view that no interference of this Court is called for in the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I answer point no.1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) First Appeal No.25/2009 is dismissed. (ii) The respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants are entitled to withdraw the remaining amount with accrued interest, if already not withdrawn. No order as to costs.