JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.02.2012 in M.V.O.P. No. 281 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Nandyal (for short, "the Tribunal"), the 2nd respondent, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its Legal Officer, Jaipur, Rajasthan state, preferred the present appeal questioning the Tribunal's Award. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 (v) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,25,000/-for the death of Y. Kasi Viswanath (hereinafter will be referred to as deceased). 4. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. It is her case that on 01.03.2010 at about 02.00 PM, the deceased and another were engaged by the 1st respondent for loading and unloading the fertilizers in the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP04-A-8179 and 8180 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle') at District cooperative Agricultural Society, A. Kodur Village. Due to the holiday of Society, the deceased and other coolies were returning to Somayajulapalli; when the offending vehicle reached the outskirts of A. Kodur Village at about 07.30 PM, its driver drove it rashly and negligently and lost control, due to which the said vehicle fell into ditches. As a result of which, the deceased received injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal; He died on 02.03.2010 at 01.00 PM while undergoing treatment—a case in Cr.No.2 of 2010 for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. came to be registered against the offending vehicle’s driver in Bandi Atmakur Police Station. 5. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed a counter contending that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident; there was a violation of the insurance policy. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 and two got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 on behalf of the claimants.RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1, and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 8. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 and two got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 on behalf of the claimants.RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1, and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle's driver at the time of the accident; the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,17,000/-to the claimant against the respondents 1 and 2 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of registration of petition till the date of realization. 9. I heard the learned Counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the offending vehicle was meant for agriculture purposes; Exs.X1 and X2 have supported it. Still, contrary to it, the 1st respondent used the offending vehicle to carry fertilizer. The offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident; the Tribunal ignored that the 1st respondent did not engage the deceased, and one Alle Chenna Reddy engaged him. The deceased was an unauthorized passenger and contributed to the alleged accident. The offending vehicle’s owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the Tribunal’s order is erroneous and liable to be set aside. The Tribunal failed to see that the offending vehicle is not covered by a permit to carry coolies. No seating capacity is provided to anyone other than the driver as per the registration certificate, i.e., Exs.X1 and X2. The Tribunal failed to apply the correct multiplier. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. Heard both sides, carefully perused the record. 13. Considering the material evidence on record and the upon hearing the argument of both the learned Counsel, the following points arise for consideration are: I. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? II. Whether Is there a violation of policy terms and conditions? III. Whether the pay and recovery can be ordered in the facts and circumstances of the case? POINT NO.I: 14. II. Whether Is there a violation of policy terms and conditions? III. Whether the pay and recovery can be ordered in the facts and circumstances of the case? POINT NO.I: 14. The second respondent/appellant did not dispute the findings of the Tribunal regarding the manner of the accident and the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident. However, the Tribunal’s finding in fastening the liability on the appellant despite the violation of the terms and conditions and quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is challenged. The details of the accident and the evidence adduced on that aspect need not be referred to. 15. As per the case of the claimant, the deceased used to work as coolie/labourer. The claimant has not placed any documentary evidence to show the exact earnings of the deceased. Considering the nature of the deceased's occupation, producing such evidence is impossible. In a case like this, where there is no specific evidence of the deceased's income, the Apex Court in Lakshmi Devi and others Vs. Mohammad Tabber, 2008 ACJ 488, held that, in today’s world, even common labour can earn Rs.100/-per day. Based on the said principle, in the absence of such evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly considered the deceased's earnings at Rs.3,000/-per month. By considering Ex.A1-certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A7-Attested copy of Ration card, and Ex.A8-Attested copy of the smart card, the Tribunal fixed the claimant's age at 50 years. However, the appellant/ third respondent contends that the age of the deceased's mother to be taken into consideration instead of the deceased’s age. A three-Judge bench of the Apex Court, in Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Mandala Yadagari Goud, 2019 ACJ 1644 , by referring to the principles laid down in Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh, 2018 ACJ 737 (S.C.) and Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (S.C.), it was categorically taken view that the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents would be the factor to take the multiplier to be applied. The relevant portion of the Judgment, in paragraphs 11 to 13, is extracted hereunder: "11..…the loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on: (i) additions/ deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deductions to be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It is the third aspect of significance, and Reshma Kumari (supra) categorically states that it does not want to re-visit the law settled in Sarla Verma on this behalf. 12….the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.) has also been referred to in Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh 2018 ACJ 737 (S.C.). 13.….there is no need to take up this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of the three-Judge Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents." 16. Following the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Royal Sundaram’s, Sube Singh's, and Reshma Kumari’s, this Court views that the Tribunal should have taken the age of the deceased in determining the loss of earnings. Still, unfortunately, it has considered the claimant's age. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the Tribunal should have deducted 50% of the income towards his expenses. Still, without assigning any reason, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of the earnings towards personal expenses. It is not in dispute that the age of the deceased was 19 years as of the date of the accident. As per the decision of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , the relevant multiplier ‘18’ is applicable for the age group of 15 to 20. Thereby the income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,000 x ½ x 12 x 18 = Rs.3,24,000/-. The Tribunal fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.3,12,000/-and awarded some compensation towards conventional heads. 17. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not disputed by the claimant. The earnings of the deceased are assessed only based on guesswork; this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be confirmed and need not be reduced as requested by the insurance company. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT Nos. II and III: 18. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not disputed by the claimant. The earnings of the deceased are assessed only based on guesswork; this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be confirmed and need not be reduced as requested by the insurance company. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT Nos. II and III: 18. The learned Counsel for the Appellant/2nd respondent mainly contends that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In support of its contention, the respondent/insurance company has examined RW.1 – B.A.L.N.Hari Krishna (Legal Officer in R2/insurance company) and RW.2-I.Prabhakar Rao (Employee in R.T.O. Office). The evidence of RWs.1 and 2 shows that Ex.X1 – R.C. extract of the offending vehicle and Ex.X2 – R.C. Extract of offending Trailer is relied on to establish that there is no provision of seating capacity in the tractor except to the driver. RW.2 stated in cross-examination that the said tractor and trailer are used for agriculture and t come under the category of light motor vehicle non-transport. The evidence of RW.1 in cross-examination shows that Ex.B1 policy was issued under the miscellaneous class – D vehicles tractor package policy and they issued the policy for the tractor only. It is not in dispute that the policy was in subsistence at the time of the accident for tractor only. 19. In Jayaprakash Agarwal and others v. Mohd.Kaleemulla and another, 2011(5) ALT 184, this Court held that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company must issue a notice to the owner of the offending vehicle calling upon him to produce the driving licence particulars of the offending vehicle's driver. However, the insurance company did not file a copy of such notice or acknowledgement in proof of service of such notice. In the absence of such notice, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the insurance company failed to discharge the mandatory obligation of issuing notice to the insured. 20. However, the insurance company did not file a copy of such notice or acknowledgement in proof of service of such notice. In the absence of such notice, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the insurance company failed to discharge the mandatory obligation of issuing notice to the insured. 20. In the light of the observations made in the said decision, this Court views that the insurance company failed to establish that the first respondent’s driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that the insured-first respondent had knowledge that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. However, he handed over the offending vehicle to the driver. 21. The Tribunal has relied on a decision between United India Insurance Company Limited, Nizamabad, Vs. Toorupu Vijaya and others, ( 2003 (5) ALD 640 ) and In Vemireddi Bhaskar Reddy Vs. Boddu Narendra Kumar and others, (1997 (1) ALD 420), wherein this Court held that: “insurance company precluded from raising bald pleas of the driver not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident without any material proof and mere statement calling the petitioner to prove the driving license is no defence at all. 22. Except for contending that the offending vehicle's driver had no valid driving license, the insurance company has not let in any evidence. RW.2 employees of R.T.O. did not state anything about the license of the offending vehicle's driver. In light of the settled legal position, this Court views the Tribunal as justified in holding that the insurance company failed to establish its contention that the offending vehicle's driver had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. 23. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contends that as per Exs.X1 and X2, the 1st respondent obtained a trailer for agricultural purposes only, but it was used for non-agricultural purposes. The evidence of PW.2 shows that the vehicle was used for bringing fertilizers from the cooperative Society. The coolies and the deceased proceeded in the tractor to load fertilizer bags. 24. The Tribunal relied on a decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. The evidence of PW.2 shows that the vehicle was used for bringing fertilizers from the cooperative Society. The coolies and the deceased proceeded in the tractor to load fertilizer bags. 24. The Tribunal relied on a decision in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Thippe Swamy, ( 2005 ACJ 805 (Kant), the High Court held that: “when the tractor and trailer was being used for carrying materials for construction of a farm on agricultural land of the owner of the vehicle and when it was involved in accident and the said house is used for keeping agricultural implements, cows, manure and pesticides and there are agricultural operation, so the vehicle was used for agricultural purpose and the insurance company liable to pay awarded compensation to the petitioners”. 25. This Court views that in the light of the facts established that at any stretch of the imagination, the vehicle's user for bringing fertilizers cannot be construed for commercial purposes. This Court finds that there is no tenability in the contention raised by the appellant's Counsel in this regard. 26. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence on record, has given a finding that the deceased and other coolies went to the cooperative office to load fertilizers into the tractor. While they were returning to their village, the accident occurred. Thus, the deceased was engaged as a labourer for loading and unloading the fertilizers at the time of the accident. The said finding of the Tribunal is not questioned by the respondent in this appeal. The 3rd respondent contends that the labourers travelling in the tractor are not covered by the insurance; the claimant is not entitled to compensation from the 3rd respondent. It is not in dispute that the Ex.B1 insurance policy was in force for the tractor as of the accident date. In New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kistamma, (1999(6) ALD page 712), this Court considered the liability under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, it observed that the petitioner was travelling in a tractor and the tractor involved in the accident. It was observed that at the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as coolie under the tractor's owner, engaged in unloading bricks transported in the tractor. This Court has held that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants. 27. It was observed that at the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as coolie under the tractor's owner, engaged in unloading bricks transported in the tractor. This Court has held that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants. 27. The Tribunal has also observed that the deceased was taken as the person engaged in the vehicle for loading fertilizers; the Court must necessarily consider the purpose for which the vehicle was put to use at the time of the accident. Simply because the vehicle was used for loading fertilizers, it cannot be said that it is used for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the insurance company has not filed the permit to show the violation. 28. In the case Amrit Paul Singh Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL Insurance CO.LTD, A.I.R. 2018 SC 2662, the Apex Court held that the vehicle is not having a permit at all and being used for hire or reward is a case of fundamental breach, and hence, the insurer, though absolved of its liability, had to pay the compensation and a recovery order was made in the said case permitting recovery from the insured. Also, when a vehicle had a permit to ply within a particular area or on a route deviated from the said area or route and was plying in another area or route. If an accident occurred, it is not a case of fundamental breach, although there is a violation of the policy terms". 29. In another case, in between Rani and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2018 ACJ 2430 , the Apex Court held that the three Judges Bench was called upon to answer with regard to the pay and recovery order passed by the Tribunal. In the said case, the Insurance Company disputed its liability on the ground that the truck had no permit for being plied in the State of Karnataka as its permit was restricted to the State of Maharashtra. The Tribunal allowed compensation and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount. However, the High Court exempted the insurance company from liability. Still, the Apex Court, in appeal, directed the insurance company to deposit the amount with the liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner. The Tribunal allowed compensation and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount. However, the High Court exempted the insurance company from liability. Still, the Apex Court, in appeal, directed the insurance company to deposit the amount with the liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner. Dealing with the aforesaid aspect, the apex Court again reiterated the earlier principles in Swaran Singh, modified the Judgment of the High Court and restored the Tribunal's order directing the insurance company to pay and recover". 30. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma, 2004 A.C.J. 2094 (S.C.), the Apex Court held that a person without a permit to ply a vehicle could not be placed on a better pedestal vis-à-vis one who has a permit but has violated any condition thereof. Plying on a vehicle without a permit is infructuous. Therefore, in section 149(2), defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance to the issue regarding the insurer's liability. It was further held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though, in law, it has no liability. In some cases, the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. To recover the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit.” 31. It is a well-established principle of law that the insurer has to establish that the breach of policy is so fundamental that it ends the contract which has been entered into between the insurer and the insured. In other words, the violation must be of such a nature that it is the primary cause of the accident and not otherwise. With this object, the legislature has spelt out grounds on which the insurance company can avoid liability. The defence provided to the insurance company is a statutory right. This Court cannot import or read any other grounds than what is spelt out in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the Act. 32. It is contended on behalf of the insurance company that there is no material placed before the Tribunal to show that the trailer was covered by the insurance policy as of the date of the accident. 33. 32. It is contended on behalf of the insurance company that there is no material placed before the Tribunal to show that the trailer was covered by the insurance policy as of the date of the accident. 33. As per Section 2(44) of the M.V. Act, a 'tractor' means "a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion) but excludes a road roller". By reading the definition of a 'tractor', it is clear that the tractor is not constructed to carry any load, although a tractor is a kind of 'heavy goods vehicle' as defined under Section 2(16) of the Act which reads as under: 'Heavy goods vehicle' means any goods carriage, the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road roller, the unladen weight of either exceeds 12,000 kgs. It (tractor) cannot be used for carrying out any activities without the help of a trailer or other equipment. 34. As per Section 2(46) of the M.V.Act, a trailer means any vehicle other than a semi-trailer and a sidecar drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. By reading the definition of a 'trailer', it is clear that it would not move on its own. It has to be drawn with the help of another motor vehicle. Although a trailer is a kind of motor vehicle as per the definition of motor vehicle defined under Section 2(28) of the M.V.Act, which reads as "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for the use of the roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted to it from external or internal sources and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with an engine capacity of not exceeding (25 cubic cms.). It (trailer) cannot be used for carrying any activities without the help of another motor vehicle, with the help of which it has to be drawn. 35. It (trailer) cannot be used for carrying any activities without the help of another motor vehicle, with the help of which it has to be drawn. 35. From the above discussion, it is clear that it is the combination of a tractor and a trailer which constitutes a full-fledged "goods carriage" which is a kind of transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the M.V.Act which reads as under : "transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." 36. Further, the combination of a tractor and trailer may be used as a transport vehicle for carrying on commercial activities or it may be used as a miscellaneous vehicle for carrying on agricultural activities depending upon the nature of the permit and insurance policy. As both tractor and trailer are independent motor vehicles by themselves, they have to be registered separately; however, if both the tractor and trailer belong to the same owner, he can either insure them together under a single policy or he can insure them separately with two different policies and the similarly either, he can insure them with the same insurance company or with other insurance companies. Therefore, the law does not contemplate whether both tractor and trailer should belong to the same person to use them for carrying on activities. 37. Section 147 of M.V.Act, deals with requirements of policies and limits of liability. Sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the said Act reads thus: Requirements of policies and limits of liability. — (1) 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 authorized 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 27 [injury to any person, including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; 38. In a reference made to the Hon’ble Divisional Bench of this Court to decide as to whether the insurance company can be fastened with the liability of a person who dies while travelling in a trailer (not insured) attached to the tractor (insured), this Court held in United India Insurance Company Limited V. Koduru Bhagyamma and others, 2008 (2) ALT 764 (D.B.), as follows: 14. Now, on analysis of these judgments and the provisions of law which have been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah and others V. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others and the reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer, and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it becomes part of the tractor. We reproduce the para-26 of the said Judgment as under, ‘The word ‘vehicle’? Mentioned in Section 147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated in section 146. Therefore, the expression vehicle, wherever appearing in Chapter X (XI), has to be only read as a motor vehicle. The principle of a claim for compensation in accidents arising from the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortious liability, and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. As much as the trailer by itself cannot be driven, it must be carried or towed with a motor vehicle, namely a tractor or a self-propelled vehicle. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer rashly and negligently would not arise. Only the prime mover or the motor vehicle controls the movement of the tractor. In case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached, can it be said that the trailer should also be independently insured to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver? That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle, not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes but is treated as a goods vehicle. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle, not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes but is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate Insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor, it becomes a tractor-trailer. No provision requires the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third-party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle, i.e., visible in all the definitions, especially in Chapter XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter-X in the case of no-fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether death or a permanent disability of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no reference to the vehicle as such. 39. Even in a case, if the tractor draws a trailer and the accident is caused by such a tractor-trailer, then the vehicle causing the accident would not be a tractor but a goods vehicle. The tractor-trailer cannot be considered a separate vehicle. In a case where the driver of the tractor was rash and negligent in driving the tractor attached to the trailer, as the deceased was a third party along with the owners and driver, the insurance companies were also vicariously liable, irrespective of the fact, whether the victim suffered the injury with the tractor or with the trailer. This Court views a trailer attached to a motor vehicle as a part of the motor vehicle itself. In subsection (28), (44) and (46) of Section 2 of the Act are read together, it becomes clear that the trailer becomes a part of the motorcycle when it is drawn by a motor vehicle because subsection (28) of Section 2 of motor vehicle Act, makes a special reference to a trailer and trailer cannot be moved on roads except by propulsion transmitted to it from a motor vehicle. 40. When a tractor and a trailer belonging to different owners are used together for any activities, and during such use, if an accident occurs, owners and insurers of both the tractor and trailer are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim. 41. 40. When a tractor and a trailer belonging to different owners are used together for any activities, and during such use, if an accident occurs, owners and insurers of both the tractor and trailer are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim. 41. In light of the principles laid down by the aforesaid Judgment, this Court views that the tractor and trailer cannot be considered separate vehicles simply because the trailer owner had not taken the insurance policy. When the evidence on record establishes that the driver of the tractor and trailer caused the accident, it cannot be contended that the insurance company of the tractor has no liability to pay the compensation amount on the ground that the deceased was proceeding in the trailer at the time of the accident. 42. When once the Tribunal accepted the claimant's case that the deceased proceeded in the tractor as a labourer for loading and unloading the fertilizers. There is no restriction to the offending vehicle's owner to use the tractor and trailer for loading and unloading the fertilizers, and the deceased, as a labourer, sustained injuries and died in the process of loading or unloading the fertilizers. 43. In a decision Shivaraj vs Rajendra, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 853, the Apex Court, it held that “…..the High Court, however, found in favour of respondent No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger who was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the tractor's owner. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the present case. As a result, the Insurance Company (respondent No.2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the tractor's owner. In our opinion, the conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the present case. …..At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case, the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant (appellant) with the liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Swarna Singh & Others 2004 3 SCC 297 1, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 5 SCC 656 , Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And others 2018 9 Scale 310 including Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh And Others. 2017 4 SCC 796 . In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with the liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner". 44. In light of the legal position referred to above, this Court finds that the deceased and others travelled in the offending vehicle as workers. However, the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the workers; in the light of the legal position as discussed above, this Court views that the Tribunal is supposed to have directed the Insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the offending vehicle's owner instead of fastening the liability on the insurance company. Accordingly, the Points No.II and III are answered. 45. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs by modifying the order passed by the Tribunal directing the 2nd respondent/insurance company to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, excluding the amount already paid within two months from the date of the order and recover the same from the offending vehicle's owner by filing an Execution Petition before the Tribunal. The petitioners can withdraw the amount by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal as per the Tribunal’s terms. 46. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.