JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved of award dated 27/08/2002 passed by 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M.V.C. No.869/2000. 2. Shri Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant, reading para-20 of the award submits that learned Claims Tribunal despite admitting two facts namely; offending vehicle bearing registration No.M.P.20 H 8787 was being driven without valid license and that tractor was used for other than agriculture purposes for which it was insured, has fastened liability on the insurance company to make payment and recover it from the respondents No.2 & 3 i.e. owner and driver of the tractor. It is submitted that when there is a fundamental breach of policy conditions and it has come on record that not only the driver was having valid driving license but tractor was also driven against the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. for the purposes other than agriculture purpose, then the Tribunal should not have directed the insurance company to pay and recover the amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 3. Reliance is place on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya and others, (2002) 2 SCC 278 and also in light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and others, (2007) 5 SCC 428 , seeking exoneration of the insurance company. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record, it is evident that law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meena Variyal (supra) is to the effect that in case of her own damage since insurance policy in terms of Section 147 of the Act is not intended to cover persons other than third parties, employees of the insured are not normally covered under the statutory insurance except in cases of a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus, ratio is that liability of the insurance company is only in regard to a third party and not to the owner of the insured vehicle unless separate premium is charged for that. 5. Same is spirit of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M. Jaya and others(supra). Thus, ratio is that liability of the insurance company is only in regard to a third party and not to the owner of the insured vehicle unless separate premium is charged for that. 5. Same is spirit of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.M. Jaya and others(supra). Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, both these judgments have no application to the facts of the case. Division Bench of this High Court in Pavitra Bai and others Vs. Kantilal and another, 200< SCC Online M.P. 515 has clearly held that it is the responsibility of the insurance company to prove the factum of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. In the present case, record reveals that no such burden was discharged by insurance company by adducing evidence to demonstrate either violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, violation of the policy condition to drive a tractor against the policy could not be proved by insurance company by exhibiting the policy and showing that which provision of policy, condition was violated. 6. However, insurance company had examined Shri D.S. Kostha from RTO, Jabalpur who proved that license in favour of driver- Rajendra Singh Rajput who drive a tractor was issued on 17/8/2000 and was valid upto 16/8/201;. Thus, it is evident that on the date of accident, driver was admittedly not having valid driving license. In view of such facts, Tribunal's order to pay and recover against the insurance company cannot be faulted with. 7. Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back immediately.