JUDGMENT : Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.12,12,400/- to the claimants alongwith 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of petition till its deposit. Liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the appellant, being insurer and indemnifier of respondent No.5–the registered owner of the vehicle. The insurer has taken exception to the award in the instant appeal. Though many grounds have been taken in the memo of appeal, but during hearing, learned counsel confined his submissions only on following three points for challenging the impugned award:- i) Driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. (ii) Deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. (iii) The compensation has been assessed on the higher side. The above points are being separately discussed hereinafter. 2. Driving License Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer argued that driving license of the driver was fake. The deposition of Aman Deep Sharma (RW-1) proved fakeness of the driving license. He had stated having checked the status of the driving license on the website of concerned Registering and Licensing Authority. The downloaded copy of the documents Ext. RW1/D and endorsement made thereon as RW1/E prove the assertion of the appellant that driving license Ext. R-1 was fake. The plea that driving license of the driver of offending vehicle was fake is not supported by the evidence. The onus to prove this issue was on the Insurer/appellant. Aman Deep Sharma (RW1) as per his statement had only checked the status of driving license on the website of the concerned Registering & Licensing Authority. It was for the insurer to produce evidence from the concerned Authority. No witness was examined by the Insurer to prove alleged fakeness of the driving license. Documents downloaded from the website, i.e. Ext. RW1/D and Ext. RW1/E-the endorsement thereupon, are not admissible. Merely on the strength of these downloaded documents, the driving license, Ext. R-1, cannot be held to be fake. It is also well settled that fake license in itself is not sufficient to exonerate the insurance company unless it is proved on the record that the owner of the vehicle knew that the license was fake and despite this knowledge, he permitted the driver to drive the vehicle. Such evidence is not available in the present case. Therefore, plea of the insurer is rejected. Point is answered accordingly. 3. Gratuitous passenger 3(a). Such evidence is not available in the present case. Therefore, plea of the insurer is rejected. Point is answered accordingly. 3. Gratuitous passenger 3(a). Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. He was travelling unauthorizedly in violation of terms of Insurance Policy. Appellant-insurance company is, therefore, not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 3(b). Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 falling under Chapter XI ‘Insurance of Motor Vehicles Against Third Party Risks’ lays down requirements of policies and limits of liability. Provisions of Section 147(1)(a) and (b) read as under:- “147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place……………….” 3(c). ‘Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger on the vehicle’ was one of the issues framed in the claim petition. Instant was a case where deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle (Pick-up Mahindra & Mahindra Camper Bolero). ‘Whether the petitioner was an unauthorized passenger on the vehicle’ was one of the issues framed in the claim petition. Instant was a case where deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle (Pick-up Mahindra & Mahindra Camper Bolero). The Registration Certificate (Ext. R2) of this vehicle delineated sitting capacity of the vehicle as five (5). Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal observed that Insurance Policy (Ext. R3) had covered the risk of four plus one passenger. Taking note of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and the Insurance Policy, learned Tribunal held that four passengers could travel in the vehicle apart from its driver. Learned Tribunal held that the capacity in which the deceased travelled in the vehicle became immaterial as the vehicle in question could carry four persons apart from its driver and the risk of four passengers apart from its driver was covered under the insurance policy. Learned Tribunal, thus, declined to go into the question whether deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and its effect on the liability of the insurer. Merely for the reason that permissible sitting capacity of the vehicle was not exhausted would not mean that question raised by the insurer did not need to be examined, more so in the facts of the case. The Registration Certificate (Ext.R2) did say that authorized capacity of total travellers in the vehicle was five. The insurance policy (Ext. R3) covered the risk of 4+1 persons including the driver. But the terms and conditions of the insurance policy clearly put in place following limitations as to use of motor vehicle:- “Use only for carriage of goods within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Policy does not cover: 1) Use for organized racing, pace-making, reliability trial or speed testing.2) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of anyone disabled mechanically propelled vehicle. 3) Use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923.” Insurance is a contract between the owner/insured and the insurer. Parties are governed by the terms of the contract. 3) Use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923.” Insurance is a contract between the owner/insured and the insurer. Parties are governed by the terms of the contract. The Motor Vehicles Act has made insurance obligatory in public interest and by way of social security, it has also provided that the insurer would be obliged to fulfil his obligations as imposed by the contract and as overseen by the statute notwithstanding any claim he may have against the other contracting party, the owner and meet the claim of third parties subject to the exceptions provided in Section 149(2) of the Act. But that does not mean that an insurer is bound to pay amount outside the contract of insurance itself or in respect of persons not covered by the contract at all [Re (2007) 7 SCC 445 , titled National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anjana Shyam & others]. In the facts of the case in hand, the insurance policy did not permit carrying of passengers in the vehicle. In terms of the Insurance Policy, the risk of 4+1 persons was covered provided that they were travelling as employees falling within the purview of Workmen’s Compensation Act and their number was within the permissible limit set forth in the registration certificate of the vehicle. It is an admitted position that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle. The claimants have not pleaded that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as an owner of goods or that he was carrying some goods in the vehicle. It is not even the case of the claimants that deceased was an employee of the owner of the vehicle and was travelling in the vehicle in that capacity. In its reply, the insurer took up the defence of deceased being a gratuitous and unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle. The claimants had neither pleaded that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as an owner of the goods or in the capacity of an employee of the owner of the vehicle, nor any evidence was led by them in this regard. Whereas, in support of its plea of deceased being a gratuitous & unauthorized passenger, the insurer also produced Ext. Whereas, in support of its plea of deceased being a gratuitous & unauthorized passenger, the insurer also produced Ext. RW1/C–a statement of Nathu Ram, father of the deceased, to the effect that his son had taken a lift in the vehicle for going from village Kafota to village Kando. This was the plea taken in the claim petition by the claimants themselves. In their claim petition, the claimants had specifically pleaded that deceased was an employee of one Khajan Singh r/o Kamraoo and worked in his mines. Said Khajan Singh appeared in the witness box as PW4 and stated that deceased was his employee. The pleadings and evidence on record thus clearly pointed out that the deceased was neither an employee of the owner of the goods vehicle in question nor travelled in the goods vehicle as owner of the goods. He had merely taken a lift in the goods vehicle for reaching his destination. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2013) 2 SCC 41 , titled Manager National Insurance Company Vs. Saju P. Paul, held that since the victim was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the insurer was not liable. In the facts of the present case, there is no escape from the conclusion that deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle in violation of terms of its insurance policy. Therefore, there is force in the contention of the appellant/insurer that it had discharged its onus on the issue of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy with oral as well as documentary evidence. The award passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be upheld on this issue. 4. Assessment of Compensation Learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contended that the assessment of compensation had been made on the higher side by the learned Tribunal. It was argued that determination of income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- per month was on the higher side. This assessment was contrary to the permissible wages of Rs.120/- per day under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the time of accident in the year 2013. The contention cannot be accepted. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, titled Chandra alias Chandaram and another Vs. This assessment was contrary to the permissible wages of Rs.120/- per day under the Minimum Wages Act prevailing at the time of accident in the year 2013. The contention cannot be accepted. Hon’ble Apex Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, titled Chandra alias Chandaram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others, held that ‘in absence of salary certificate, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick, but at the same time, cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done, but at the same time, the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased deposing about the income of the deceased.’ In the instance case, wife of the deceased had stated that her husband was earning Rs.12000/- per month by working as a labourer under the employment of Khazan Singh. The claimants did not examine co-labourers. Khazan Singh appeared as PW4 and deposed that deceased was working under him and being paid Rs.12000/- per month. Despite this, learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- on the basis of assumption of monthly income of the deceased in the year 2014 under the Minimum Wages Act. The accident had occurred on 5.2.2013. Taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I do not find that assessment of Rs.6000/- as monthly income of the deceased was on the higher side. Point is answered accordingly. 5. In view of above discussions, the pleas of appellant/insurer on the point of driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle being fake and on the point of income of the deceased having been assessed on the higher side by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, are rejected having no force. For the reasons discussed above, it is, however, held that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. For the reasons discussed above, it is, however, held that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to suffer the liability on the strength of breach of insurance policy. Having held that deceased was travelling in the vehicle in breach of the conditions of insurance policy, it will be appropriate at this stage to notice (2017) 4 SCC 796 , titled Manuara Khatun vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh, where the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. The Apex Court held that even though the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation in view of breach of the policy, yet considering the benevolent object of the Act, the insurer was directed to pay compensation to the claimants in the first instance with a right to recover it from the owner of the motor vehicle in question. (2019) 10 Scale 668 , titled Anu Bhanvara vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, was a case where gratuitous passengers were injured in a motor accident case. Hon’ble Supreme Court invoked doctrine of ‘pay and recover’ and held that insurance company shall be liable to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants and entitled to recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle. The awarded amount has been deposited by the appellant- Insurance Company. Even though the Insurance Company is exonerated, yet relying upon these pronouncements, in the interest of justice, the appellant/insurer is directed to pay the compensation amount as assessed in the impugned award dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmour District at Nahan in MAC Petition No.62-N/2 of 2013 to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4 and to recover the same from the registered owner of the vehicle, i.e. respondent No.5-Sh. Jai Pal. The appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the above terms alongwith all pending application(s), if any.