JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for both the parties at the stage of admission. 2. The present appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 28/09/2018 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warora, District Chandrapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.12/2014. 3. The facts of the present case is as under: On 08/05/2014, the respondent No.1 asked the deceased to bring sand from Metepar Ghat in his tractor bearing registration No. MH-34/AP-0227. Accordingly, the deceased went to bring the sand to construction site belonging to the respondent No.1. The deceased while returning by his tractor gave a dash to a tree. The deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. The Tractor at the relevant time was owned by respondent No.1 and was insured with respondent No.2. The appellant being legal representative of the deceased filed claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents. 4. The respondent No.1 admitted the claim made by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 filed its written statement, denied the liability and stated that the tractor and the trolley attached to it were used to bring sand, the said tractor and trolley were used for transportation of goods. According to respondent No.2, the tractor was meant to be used for agriculture use only. The respondent No.2 further submitted that the deceased was not holding valid driving license to drive this class of vehicle. The respondent No. 2 therefore alleged breach of policy on aforesaid grounds and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the sides pleased to dismiss the claim petition filed by the appellant on the ground that as the deceased was using tractor with trolley attached to it for transportation of sand, the tractor became a goods vehicle which resulted in breach of policy. The aforesaid judgment is the subject matter of challenge in the present Appeal. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for appellant is that it is well settled law that merely because a trolley is attached to a tractor, the said tractor by itself does not become a goods vehicle. The tractor remains a tractor. A person carrying a valid driving license to drive a tractor, he continues to have so even if a trolley is attached to it. The tractor remains a tractor. A person carrying a valid driving license to drive a tractor, he continues to have so even if a trolley is attached to it. The driving license does not become ineffective merely because a trolley is attached to it. It is further contended that it is well settled law that breach of policy can only be claimed by the insurer when such breach is fundamental cause of the accident. It is submitted that act of the deceased of carrying sand in a vehicle registered for agricultural purpose was not fundamental breach of policy as the said act was not the root cause of the accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have fastened liability on the respondent No.2. Moreover, it is not the term of policy that it should be used for agricultural purpose. 7. The learned Counsel for appellant relied on following citations: 1) Nagashetty Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 56 2) Chabu @ Chayatai Vasanta Kodape and others Vs. Balaji Wasudeo Somankar and another reported in 2023 (3) ABR 205 3) Fahim Ahmad and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2014) 14 SCC 148 4) Late Suman Vishwanath Chavan, (Deleted) and others Vs. The Divisional Controller, in First Appeal No.1403/2017 of this Court Bench at Aurangabad. 8. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the tractor was attached with trolley and it was used for transportation of goods on construction site. The tractor was authorized for agriculture use only. The deceased was not having valid driving licence to drive this class of vehicle on the date of accident. This fact was known to the respondent No.1 who is father of the deceased. However, he handed over the vehicle for transportation of goods and therefore he has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 9. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 relied on following citation: 1) Swapnil Vs. The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Reported in 2019(1) An.W.R. 584 (Bom.) 2) Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 10. I have heard both the parties at length. 9. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 relied on following citation: 1) Swapnil Vs. The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. Reported in 2019(1) An.W.R. 584 (Bom.) 2) Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India Insurance Company and another reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 10. I have heard both the parties at length. Perused copy of policy placed on record Exhibit 37 and copy of driving licence at Exhibit 25. From the policy, it appears that under the caption "Limitation as to use- the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub-Sec. 3 of Sec. 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy does not cover use for a) Organized racing, b) Pace Making, c) Reliability Trials, d) Speed Testing, e) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any on disabled Mechanically propelled vehicle (only for Passenger Carrying Vehicles)." From driving licence, it appears that date of issuance of driving licence is 17/11/2011 and was effective till 16/11/2031, the class of vehicle is shown as "tractor". 11. The learned Counsel for appellant relied on Nagashetty (supra) wherein learned Counsel for respondents relying on definitions of tractor and trolley and transport vehicle submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court that once a trailer was attached to the tractor, the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He further submitted that Sec. 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicle and a driver only had a licence to drive a tractor and was not having a licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle. As such, his contention was that it could not be said that driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph No.10 which read thus: < WXY>"10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Sec. 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph No.10 which read thus: < WXY>"10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Sec. 10 a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle."</ WXY> 12. The learned Counsel for appellant also relied on Chabu @ Chayatai Vasanta Kodape and others (supra), wherein this Court placed reliance on Nagashetty (supra) this judgment is relying on by the judgment in support of his contention that the Insurance Company has to establish that there is a breach of policy, however, such breach has to be so fundamental that it puts an end to the contract and that such breach has caused the accident. 13. 13. The learned Counsel for appellant also relied on Fahim Ahmad and others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ((Bench constituted of three judges) held in paragraph No.5 which read thus: < WXY>"A perusal of the records shows that, at the time of the accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was carrying sand for the purpose of construction of underground tank near the farm land for irrigation purpose(s). However, merely because it was carrying sand would not mean that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose and consequently, there was a breach of the condition of policy on the part of the insured. There is nothing on record to show that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose(s) or purpose(s) other than agricultural purpose(s), i.e., for hire or reward, as contemplated under Sec. 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the said Act."</ WXY> 14. The learned Counsel for appellant also relied on judgment in First Appeal No.1403/2017 of Late Suman Vishwanath Chavan, (Deleted) and others (supra) wherein it is held that the claim is under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, the compensation awarded as per structural formula under Sec. 163A Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act. The said judgment is not applicable in the present set of facts as the owner was the father of deceased. 15. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 relied on Swapnil (supra) in support of his contention that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. As such, there is no liability of Insurance Company. 16. The learned Counsel for respondent No.2 relied on Ramkhiladi and another (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 held not maintainable by borrower/permissive user of vehicle against owner and/or insurer of said vehicle, as such borrower/permissive user steps into shoes of owner, and owner cannot both be claimant and recipient. In a claim under Sec. 163-A, deceased/victim has to be a third party in relation to vehicle in question mere own-use of motor vehicle by owner/borrower/permissive user does not entitle such person(s) to maintain petition under Sec. 163-A against insurer of their own/ borrower vehicle. 17. After considering the law position, turning to the policy, there is nowhere mentioned that the tractor can be used only for agricultural purpose. 17. After considering the law position, turning to the policy, there is nowhere mentioned that the tractor can be used only for agricultural purpose. So far as breach of terms and conditions of the policy is concerned, as held in Nagashetty (supra) once it is proved that driver had valid and effective licence to drive a tractor, the question is whether merely because a trolley was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods. Whether the licence to drive a tractor could become ineffective? There is no category of licence of tractor and trolley. The category of licence is only "tractor". As such, there is no breach of any policy in respect of holding of licence as well as using it for carrying it for his personal use. So far as claim under Sec. 163-A is concerned cannot be considered as held Ramkhiladi and another (supra). However, on perusal of policy, it is clear that premium covering personal accident to owner/driver is shown to be the amount of insurance of Rs.2,00,000.00. Though, claim under Sec. 163-A is not maintainable as held in Ramkhiladi and another (supra) as per the contract of insurance in goods of the personal accident, the owner and driver is entitled to sum of Rs.2,00,000.00. Therefore, this is observed hereinabove, the driver being in the shoes of the owner shall be entitled towards sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 even as per the terms of the contract of the insurance. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: < WXY>ORDER i) The present Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs. ii) The award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.12/2014 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warora, District Chandrapur is hereby set aside. iii) The claimant is entitled of Rs.2,00,000.00 along with 9% interest per annum from filing petition till its realization from respondent No.2. iv) The respondent No.2 in Claim Petition No.12/2014 is to deposit Rs.2,00,000.00 with this Court along with 9% interest per annum from the filing of the petition till its realization. The claimants are entitled to withdraw that amount on deposit. v) Decree be drawn up accordingly. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.</ WXY>