JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.387 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Tirupati (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 2nd respondent/insurance company filed this appeal questioning the fastening of the liability on it. 2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. for convenience. 3. The petitioners filed the claim application under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one K. Chittemma (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased'), who died in a motor vehicle accident. 4. The 1st petitioner is the husband, and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was earning a minimum of Rs.100/-per day by doing coolie work. On 21.11.2006 at approximately 08.30 AM, the deceased, while going to the coolie work sitting behind the driver of Tractor bearing No.KA.07-653 and Tractor KA.07-654 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle'). Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver and applying sudden brakes, the deceased fell from the Tractor. The wheels of the Tractor ran over her, causing severe injuries. She was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Aragonda; then to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore and succumbed to injuries on the same day at 11.30 AM. A case was registered against the offending vehicle's driver vide Cr.No.65 of 2006 of Thavanampalli Police Station. 5. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle was slowly driving the same but the deceased suddenly attempted to get down from the Tractor and had fallen on the road. The Tractor and trailer of the first respondent were insured with the 2nd respondent; the policy was in force as on the date of accident; the policy covers the risk to the third party and that offending vehicle’s driver has got a valid driving license to drive the Tractor and trailer. The compensation claimed is excessive. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that the driver of the first respondent has no valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle and thereby violated the conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed is excessive. 7. The compensation claimed is excessive. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that the driver of the first respondent has no valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle and thereby violated the conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed is excessive. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4; on behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.B1 and X1. 8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.4,56,000/-with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that the Tribunal ought to have noted that, as per the averments of the claimants themselves, the deceased sat behind the driver of the Tractor, which is prohibited under law. The Tribunal ought to have noted that as per Exs.A1, A2 and also PW.2, who is an eye witness, the deceased sat on the plank, which is the back side of the driver of the Tractor and the same is not permitted under law. In that view of the matter it ought to have held that the deceased also contributed on her part in causing the accident. The Tribunal below should have noted that the Tractor provides a single seat meant for the driver only but not others. In that view, Tribunal ought to have exonerated the appellant from its liability. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the Tribunal’s findings and observations. 11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondents and perused the material available on record. 12. Now, the point that arises for consideration is : Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company? POINT: 13. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, while answering issue No.1, the Tribunal held that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- together with interest at 8% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2. 14. POINT: 13. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, while answering issue No.1, the Tribunal held that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,56,000/- together with interest at 8% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2. 14. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased died due to injuries in the accident is not disputed in this appeal. The said finding attained finality. The said case of the claimant is also established by Ex.A1-F.I.R., Ex.A2-Certified Copy of the charge sheet, Ex.A3 – Copy of inquest report and Ex.A4 -certified copy of post-mortem certificate. The Tribunal has also found that the driver of the 1st respondent had got a valid license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (L.M.V.) and Heavy Transport Vehicle. The Tribunal held that the Tractor and trailer come under the transport vehicle category, for which the driver of the 1st respondent had got a valid driving license. The contention of the 2nd respondent that the driver of the 1st respondent has no valid driving license has been negatived by the Tribunal by giving reasons. The Tribunal has also found that the policy of the offending vehicle (i.e., for the Tractor and trailer), i.e., Ex.B1, was in force as of the date of the accident. Reading Appeal Grounds and the contentions raised before this Court on behalf of the appellant, make it clear that the appellant has not questioned the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal. The only contention raised in this appeal is that PW.2–K. Reddappa, an eyewitness to the accident, testified that the deceased sat on the plank, which is the back side of the driver of the Tractor. The Tractor provided a single seat meant for the driver, and in that view of the matter, the appellant ought to have been exonerated from its liability. 15. According to the case of the petitioner, on 21.11.2006 at about 08.00 AM when, the deceased, while going to the coolie work, was sitting behind the driver of the Tractor bearing No.KA-07-653 and trailer bearing No.KA-07-654, and due to the rash and negligent driving, the deceased fell from the Tractor. The said case of the petitioners that the deceased proceeded on the offending vehicle at the time of the accident to attend coolie work was not disputed. 16. The said case of the petitioners that the deceased proceeded on the offending vehicle at the time of the accident to attend coolie work was not disputed. 16. After considering the evidence on record, this Court also views that the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants and respondents clearly show that the deceased sustained injuries and died due to the negligent acts of the driver of the tractor-trailer. 17. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and Others, 2004 (2) JLJ 127 , considering the question of whether the insurance policy in respect of goods vehicle is required to cover the gratuitous passenger given the amendment to Section 147 of the Act, the Apex Court, after considering all the previous decisions, concluded that the Insurance Company was not liable as the risk of an unauthorized passenger in a goods vehicle or gratuitous passengers is not covered under the policy. There is a breach of the condition of the policy in carrying a passenger in a goods vehicle. Therefore, the vehicle's owner was held liable to satisfy the decree. However, in paragraph 21, the Court thought that the interests of justice would be sub-served if the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied and recover the same from the vehicle owner. 19. In Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., Civil Appeal No.8144 of 2008, the Apex Court held that : “to deny the benefit of pay and recover, what seems to have substantially weighed with the High Court is the reference to larger Bench made by the two-Judge Bench in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and another, (2009) 8 SCC 785 which doubted the correctness of the decisions in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directing insurance companies to pay the compensation amount even though the insurance company has no liability to pay. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and another, (2009) 8 SCC 785 which doubted the correctness of the decisions in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India directing insurance companies to pay the compensation amount even though the insurance company has no liability to pay. In the Parvathneni case, the Supreme Court pointed out that Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not cover such types of cases and that if the insurance company has no liability to pay at all, then it cannot be compelled by order of the Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pay the compensation amount and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The above reference in the Parvathneni case was disposed of on 17.09.2013 by the three-Judges Bench keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case. Since the reference to the larger Bench in the Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently, the decision in the Swaran Singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut, and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and, thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside, and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored". 20. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tam Tam Venkata Reddy and others, 2004 (2) ALD 775 , it observed that, “…..Admittedly all the claimants travelling in the vehicle were injured because of the accident, and only a trump card for the Insurance Company order to get absolved from liability is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Tam Tam Venkata Reddy and others, 2004 (2) ALD 775 , it observed that, “…..Admittedly all the claimants travelling in the vehicle were injured because of the accident, and only a trump card for the Insurance Company order to get absolved from liability is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. This ground is not available for the Insurance Company to deny compensation to the injured, who are third parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 (3) A.L.D. 24 (S.C.) : 2001 ACJ 843 , United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 (3) A.L.D. 20 (S.C.) : (2003) 3 SCC 338 and N.I v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) : 2004 (1) Scale 124 ”. “……If all the above three judgments are read together, the intention of the Apex Court though under different contexts is crystal clear i.e., even if there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, either by way of insured vehicle being driven by a driver not possessing valid licence or the insured vehicle carrying gratuitous passengers, or violation of the terms and conditions of the policy in any other manner, the liability of the insurer to pay compensation to the third party-injured, does not cease. At best, the insurer after paying the compensation to the injured can later recover the same from the insured, by proving the alleged breach of policy conditions since the accident occurred prior to 3.12.2002 i.e., the date of the judgment in Asha Rani's case”. 21. In Shivaraj vs. Rajendra, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 853, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the following facts of the case, 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. 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. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of 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 , 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. Therefore, the appellant may 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". 22. In light of the legal position referred to above, this Court finds that though the deceased travelled in the offending vehicle as a coolie by sitting on the plank of the back side of the Tractor's driver, though the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the coolie, 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 point is answered. 23. Accordingly, the point is answered. 23. 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. 24. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.