JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that both these appeals can be disposed of by common judgment and order since the challenge in both these appeals is to the common judgment and order dated 05.01.2008 made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim (Tribunal) in M. A. C. Petition No. 64/2006 by the legal representatives of Firoz Khan claiming compensation of 15 lakhs on account of the Rs.15 lakhs on acount of the demise of the said Firoz Khan in an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle on 08.04.2005. 3. The accident took place in a field bearing Sr. No. 136 of village Kajleshwar, Tah. Karanja, Dist. Washim belonging to one Faimidabee. She had engaged the tractor owned by Kanhiyalal and driven by Ranjeet to undertake certain work including the digging of a well in the field. On 08.04.2005 at about 04:15 p.m., when the deceased Firoz was returning towards his house after purchasing some articles from the grocery shop, a heavy stone came flying and hit his head causing him grievous injuries. Firoz was rushed to the hospital, where he was unfortunately declared dead. 4. The legal representatives of Firoz (claimants) had urged that the stone, which struck Firoz was due to a blasting operation carried out for digging of well in the field of Faimidabee and that this accident arose due to the use of the tractor in question. Since the tractor was insured with United India Insurance Co., the Insurance Company was also impleaded as respondent in the Claim Petition. 5. The Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 05.01.2008 allowed the Claim Petition as against Faimidabee, owner, and driver of the tractor but, dismissed the Claim Petition against the Insurance Company. The Tribunal accepted that this accident arose out of the use of a motor vehicle but, found that there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy for using the tractor for commercial purposes and therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. 6. Faimidabee, owner of the field instituted First Appeal No. 494/2013 and the owner and driver of the tractor instituted First Appeal No. 437/2008 against the Tribunal’s order dated 05.01.2008 urging inter alia that this was not a case of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Claim Petition. Faimidabee, owner of the field instituted First Appeal No. 494/2013 and the owner and driver of the tractor instituted First Appeal No. 437/2008 against the Tribunal’s order dated 05.01.2008 urging inter alia that this was not a case of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Claim Petition. The appellants, in the alternate also urged that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. 7. By common judgment and order dated 10.10.2013, both these First Appeals were disposed of by this Court holding that this was not a case of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle and therefore, Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (the said Act) was not maintainable. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s order dated 05.01.2008 was set aside in its entirety. 8. Aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 10.10.2013, the claimants instituted Civil Appeal No. 8785 and 8786 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By detailed judgment and order dated 03.07.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that this was indeed a case of an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and therefore, Claim Petition under Section 166 of the said Act was very much maintainable before the Tribunal. Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered that the Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimant but, noted that this Court had not decided the issue as to whether there was any fundamental breach of the insurance policy and therefore, remanded the matter to this Court for a decision on the said issue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that the issue of payment of compensation to the claimants was settled. However, the issue as to whether this compensation was to be borne ultimately by the Insurance Company or the owner and the driver of the tractor was required to be decided by this Court on remand. This is how the present appeals have come up for a final hearing in pursuance of the remand from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Shri M. R. Sabu, learned counsel for the owner and driver submitted that there was no clause in the insurance policy that prohibited the owner from renting out the tractor and trolley attached to it. This is how the present appeals have come up for a final hearing in pursuance of the remand from the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Shri M. R. Sabu, learned counsel for the owner and driver submitted that there was no clause in the insurance policy that prohibited the owner from renting out the tractor and trolley attached to it. He submitted that burden of establishing any breach or fundamental breach of the insurance policy is upon the Insurance Company. In this case, such a burden is far from discharged by the Insurance Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot avoid liability based on vague contentions of a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. He relies on the following judgments in support of his contentions:- (i) B. V. Nagaraju Vs. M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ AIR 1996 SC 2054 ], (ii) Lakhmi Chand Vs. Reliance General Insurance [ (2016) 3 SCC 100 ], (iii) Poonam Singh Vs. Kamla [ 1996 ACJ 398 ], United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A. Victoria [ 2001 ACJ 196 ]. 10. Shri Joharapurkar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that this was a clear case of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy as also the provisions of the said Act. He pointed out that the tractor was registered in the State of Rajasthan but, was used in the State of Maharashtra, which is prohibited by the law. He pointed out that the tractor was used for purposes other than that for which it was meant and this also constitutes a breach of insurance policy and provision of the said Act. He pointed out that the tractor was fitted with batteries that were in fact mounted on it, which is again a breach of insurance policy and the provisions of the said Act. He submitted that there is clear evidence that the tractor was used for commercial purposes, which again was prohibited by the insurance policy, and therefore, this was a case of a fundamental breach of the insurance policy as well as provisions of the said Act. He submitted that in such circumstances, the Insurance Company can never be made liable for the compensation. He submitted that in such circumstances, the Insurance Company can never be made liable for the compensation. He submitted that appropriate directions are liable to be issued to the owner and driver of the tractor to recoup the compensation already paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants under the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court. He relies on the following judgments in support of his contentions:- (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma [Appeal (Civil) No. 5478/2004, decided on 25.08.2004, Supreme Court], (ii) Misc. Appeal No. 397/2012 [United India Insurance Company Vs. Binod Prasad, Patna High Court], (iii) United India Insurance Co. Vs. Sri V. Gangappa [ 2006 ACJ 2424 , Karnataka High Court] and (iv) Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka [2005 DGLS(SC) 25]. 11. The rival contentions on the aforesaid limited issue now fall for my determination. 12. In response to Claim Petition No. 64/2006, the Insurance Company filed its written statement. In the written statement, the Insurance Company firstly denied that the accident was caused on account of the use of the motor vehicle. Secondly, without prejudice the Insurance Company pleaded that tractor was insured under the Farmer Package Policy for use of the owner’s agricultural purposes. It was pleaded that only a trailer can be attached to the tractor and it was impermissible to attach any other machine such as a boring machine etc. It was pleaded that such attachment is prohibited under the said Act as well as the insurance policy. On this basis, it was urged that risk for any loss stood excluded. 13. The Insurance Company pleaded that the tractor was used for commercial purposes i.e. it was hired or rented out for use of blasting in the field and for digging well. It was pleaded that this was in contravention of the provisions of the said Act as well as the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 14. Based on the aforesaid, the Insurance Company pleaded that there was a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved of the liability to indemnify the owner and driver of the tractor. 15. In the case of Lakhmi Chand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof to establish a fundamental breach of the insurance policy is on the insurer. 15. In the case of Lakhmi Chand (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the burden of proof to establish a fundamental breach of the insurance policy is on the insurer. Further, the Insurance Company, to avoid liability, must not only establish the defense claimed but also establish that the breach of policy was so fundamental that it ended the contract, and further it is this breach, which caused the accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere factum of carrying more passengers than permitted capacity in goods carrying vehicle by the insured does not amount to a fundamental breach of terms of the policy. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that the burden of proof to establish such breach on the part of insured/causality rests with the Insurance Company. 16. Therefore, it is clear that it is not sufficient for the Insurance Company to merely plead breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy but further, the Insurance Company has to establish such breach. The Insurance company, in terms of Lakhmi Chand (supra), is also required to establish that the breach of policy was so fundamental that it ended the contract and breach was the cause of the accident. 17. Now, in this case, the Insurance Company examined its officer Mahadevrao Chattarkar and his evidence is to be found at Exh. 62 in the Record and Proceedings. He deposed that he was working in the Insurance Company since last 21 years. He deposed that tractor in question had been insured by his Company under the Farmer Package Policy. He deposed that there was no insurance cover for the boring machine. He deposed that in terms of the policy, the tractor and trolley had to be used by the insured only for his agricultural purposes. He deposed that if the tractor or trolley were to be rented out, the Insurance Company would not responsible for the same. In the entire examination-in-chief of Shri Mahadev Chattarkar, there is no assertion in this case that the tractor was fitted with some impermissible attachment. There was no reference to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to demonstrate which clause of the insurance policy were alleged to have been breached. In the entire examination-in-chief of Shri Mahadev Chattarkar, there is no assertion in this case that the tractor was fitted with some impermissible attachment. There was no reference to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to demonstrate which clause of the insurance policy were alleged to have been breached. All that was said in the chief was that there was no insurance policy covering the boring machine and further, if the tractor and trolley were to be rented out by the insured, then, the Insurance Company would not be responsible. 18. In the cross-examination, Shri Mahadev Chattarkar clearly and categorically admitted that there was no condition in the insurance policy that no boring work should be carried out with the aid of the tractor and trolley. Similarly, this witness admitted that there was no condition in the insurance policy that restricted the owner of the tractor to use the tractor and trolley in his own field. He also admitted that there was no condition in the insurance policy that absolved the Insurance Company of its liability in case the tractor and trolley were to be rented out. He only denied the suggestion that work of boring is also agricultural work. Finally, he denied the liability to pay compensation on account of the demise of Firoz. 19. Based on the aforesaid evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability in this case. Neither does the insurance policy contain any condition that the owner of the tractor had to use the tractor and trolley in his own field nor was any other evidence produced to substantiate this aspect. Similarly, neither is there any condition in the insurance policy against renting out the tractor and the trolley nor was any other evidence produced to substantiate this aspect. Therefore, based on premise that the tractor and trolley were rented out allegedly for some commercial purpose, the Insurance Company cannot escape liability. 20. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter to this Court noted that there was no analysis by the High Court regarding terms and conditions of the policy and its fundamental character. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted in para no. 20. At this stage, it is necessary to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while remanding the matter to this Court noted that there was no analysis by the High Court regarding terms and conditions of the policy and its fundamental character. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted in para no. 6 that the insurer had only raised a singular plea with regard to the use of the tractor namely with a commercial purpose and on that foundation it had advanced the submission that there had been a fundamental breach of the insurance policy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also noted at para no. 26 that the insurer had advanced a plea that the tractor was insured under the Farmer Package Policy for use of owner’s agricultural purposes by the owner of the vehicle but, it was used for commercial purpose by mounting a blasting machine thereof and that such use was a breach of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay the compensation. 21. As noted earlier, there is nothing pointed out in the insurance policy nor in the evidence of Shri Chattarkar to establish that there was any breach of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy because the tractor was used for commercial purposes. Similarly, Shri Chattarkar never deposed that the tractor was fitted with a blasting machine and how such an attachment would amount to a breach of terms of the insurance policy. Even the pleadings on all these aspects are quite sketchy. In any case, mere pleadings are never sufficient because pleadings have to be ultimately proven. As was also held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lakhmi Chand (supra), the burden of proof to establish a fundamental breach of the insurance policy is on the insurer. Having regard to the oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record by the insurer in this case, such burden has not been discharged. 22. The decisions relied upon by Shri Joharapurkar turn on their facts. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma (supra), the issue was whether the tractor fitted with a trailer used for the carriage of goods by another person for his business activities could be regarded as used for agricultural purposes. Such an issue does not arise in the present case. Similarly, in United India Insurance Company Vs. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma (supra), the issue was whether the tractor fitted with a trailer used for the carriage of goods by another person for his business activities could be regarded as used for agricultural purposes. Such an issue does not arise in the present case. Similarly, in United India Insurance Company Vs. Binod Prasad (supra) the issue was the use of the tractor for carrying out sand from river sand and whether this could be regarded as any agricultural work. Again, such an issue does not arise in the present case. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) was in the context of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1967. 23. Thus, based on the evidence led by the insurer in this case, as well as the decisions relied upon, there is no case made out by the Insurance Company to escape liability. 24. Both these appeals are therefore disposed of by holding that the Insurance Company was indeed liable for payment of compensation as determined by the Tribunal. The impugned orders made by the Tribunal are therefore interfered to that extent. 25. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.