JUDGEMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the Award/Judgment dated 20.06.2020 (hereinafter called 'award' for brevity) passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu (hereinafter called 'Tribunal' for Short), in file No. 14064 titled Reeta Devi & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors. 2. Factual background of the case is that on 25.01.2015, one Yash Pal S/o Daya Ram R/o Bassi Khurd Samba (hereinafter called 'deceased') was travelling in Tractor bearing Registration No. JK- 21/1582 as Labour/Cleaner, driven by respondent No. 3, from Bari Brahamana towards Vijaypur in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed who could not control the vehicle which on reaching at Suwankha More hit with the divider of the road; that the deceased fell down, came under the vehicle and received multiple injuries on whole of his body. The deceased was brought to Govt. Medical College Hospital Jammu, where he died at night on the same day. The said accident was alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the respondent No. 3 who was driving the offending Vehicle in a very rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed. 3. Since the offending vehicle owned by respondent Daya Ram, driven by respondent Tulsi Ram was insured with the appellant insurance company, as on date of accident, wife Reeta Devi, minor daughter Purvi Devi and mother Satya Devi of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation in terms of Motor Vehicle Act before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent insurer filed objections whereas respondents-owner and driver, despite service of notices and appearance through their counsel, absented from the proceedings and were proceeded ex-parte. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the insurance Company vide insurance Policy No. 262202/31/2015/1182 w.e.f. June 13, 2014 to Mid Night of June, 12, 2015. 5. Appellant Insurer raised questions about the maintainability of the petition contending that the deceased and the owner of the offending Vehicle i.e. "Mahindra Tractor" are son and father, the question of their being relationship of employer and employee between them did not arise at all and sought exemption from indemnification that since the deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the offending vehicle therefore, appellant-Insurance Company was not liable at all. 6. 6. The learned Tribunal for the trial of the claim petition, framed the following issues:- i. Whether an accident took place on 25.01.2015 at Swankha Morh, Samba, involving Offending Vehicle bearing Registration No. JK 21-1582 as a result of which the deceased Yashpal received fatal injuries? ...OPP ii. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? ....OPP iii. Whether there was any violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy with respect to Vehicle No. JK 21-1582 on the date of occurrence, if yes, what is its effect? ...OPRI iv. Relief? 7. Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record passed Award/Judgment dated June, 20, 2020 holding that the respondents No. 1 to 3/Claimants are entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs. 11,85,200/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% P.A from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, payable by appellant-insurer. 8. The Appellant-insurer has challenged the impugned award passed by the Tribunal on many grounds, however, learned counsel for the appellant while making submissions at the bar has restricted his plea only to the extent of a legal point that the deceased who was son of the respondent-insured being owner of the vehicle cannot be said to be under his employment, as such, the relationship of an employer and the employee or being engaged as labour by the owner or driver of the offending vehicle cannot be accepted, as such, in view of the death of the deceased the claimants could not file the claim petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 to claim compensation. He has argued that Sections 165(1) and 166(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 provides that legal heirs of the deceased can approach the Claims Tribunal by filing of an application only if the legal heirs of the deceased person allege another person of doing a civil wrong resulting into death of the deceased. It is incumbent on the claimants to prove negligence before the owner or Insurance Company could be held liable for compensation because liability of the owner of the offending to compensate the victim is based on law of torts. He further argued that proof of negligence remains lynch pin to claim compensation. It is incumbent on the claimants to prove negligence before the owner or Insurance Company could be held liable for compensation because liability of the owner of the offending to compensate the victim is based on law of torts. He further argued that proof of negligence remains lynch pin to claim compensation. The enquiry or damage being caused for someone's fault is to be read as because of someone's negligence/carelessness; that the liability of the owner of the offending vehicle to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased in a road accident due to the negligent driving of his servant i.e. driver is based on the law of torts regarding the negligence of the driver as the servant of the owner is made liable on the basis of vicarious liability. He has further argued that the offending vehicle i.e. tractor was not meant for carrying passengers and had no seating capacity except of its driver and there was no insurance cover for a person sitting on mudguard of the tractor. He has further argued that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is patently illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the present appeal has been filed on three substantial questions of law which are reproduced as under: a. Whether there can be a relationship of employer-employee between father and son; b. Whether the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the tractor Trolley and whether any third party or additional employee/labour is covered under the policy of insurance; and c. Whether the tractor trolley could be used/plied for agriculture purpose only and not for any other purpose. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that in view of the law laid down in a number of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts merely because in such a situation where no wages be paid in cash is also not a ground to infer absence of legal relationship of employer and employee and that it had been held that relationship regarding employer and employee and the relationship between father and son would not take away the liability of the insurance Company. They have further argued that deceased could not be said to be a gratuitous passenger as the appellant failed to bring the evidence on record to prove to the contrary that the deceased was not working under the course of employment of the Insured-owner. They have further argued that as per policy of insurance the seating capacity including the driver shows as 2+1, as such the additional premium had been paid to include the employee as well and once such premium has been taken the contention of the appellant that except driver no other person covered under the insurance policy cannot sustain and the same is required to be rejected. 11. Heard. Perused the record and considered. 12. On perusal of the Insurance Policy it is found that the seating capacity including that of driver is shown as 2+1 and additional premium as per its schedule had also been paid covering driver and employees once the additional premium had been taken from additional employee and the seating capacity has been shown 2+1, the contention of the appellant that except driver no other person is covered under the Insurance Policy cannot be accepted and is required to be rejected. Deceased cannot be said to be a gratuitous passenger in the Tractor Trolley as in view of evidence on record particularly on the basis of statements of respondent no. 1 Reeta Devi and independent witnesses Allah Rakha, Sunny Kumar, Daya Ram and Tulsi Ram examined by the claimants, who have stated in one voice that the deceased was engaged as labourer in the Tractor Trolley by the owner/insured. The appellant has failed to bring the evidence on record to prove contrary that the deceased was not working under the course of employment of the insured-owner. 13. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a case reported as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumant & Anr. (2006) ACJ 251 and in United India India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prakash Shankar Gurav & Anr. (2006) ACJ 747, Hon'ble Madras High Court in a case titled New India Assurance v. Lakshmi {2014 Legal Eagle (MAD) 2214} and a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a case Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. vs. D.S. Girish & Anr. Ltd. Vs. Prakash Shankar Gurav & Anr. (2006) ACJ 747, Hon'ble Madras High Court in a case titled New India Assurance v. Lakshmi {2014 Legal Eagle (MAD) 2214} and a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a case Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. vs. D.S. Girish & Anr. have considered this legal aspect and on the basis of law laid down in all the citations it can be safely inferred that the son of the owner cannot be said to be not under the employment of the owner in absence of any evidence to the contrary. It has been consistently held that there is no inhibition in law for employment of member of the family in connection with the tractor-trolly. It was further observed that in view of the peculiar family relationship it is absurd to insist on documentary proof of appointment and the payment of wages by cash as the only mode of consideration for proof of employment. It is the consistent that in view of the relationship regarding employer and employee and the relationship between brothers, father and son would not take away the liability of the Insurance Company. 14. Once it has been established on the basis of evidence led before the Tribunal and also based on the insurance policy that the offending vehicle tractor was used for agriculture purpose, as such, trolley was part of it and a help of employee is required to carry on the agriculture pursuits. It is to be noted that the father engaged his son as employee in the vehicle owned by the father is not prohibited in law nor it can be said that such a situation is not normally possible. 15. On a holistic reading of the facts and circumstance of the instant case and in light of there being no restriction or prohibition under the Act, for father to employ his son as an employee, this court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there was relationship of employment between the deceased and the owner-insured. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as 2007 ACJ 1025 titled Gottumukkala Appalla Narasimha Raju & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported as 2007 ACJ 1025 titled Gottumukkala Appalla Narasimha Raju & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. in which it has been held that it is wholly absurd to suggest that the husband would be a workman of his wife in absence of any specific contract holding that there was no doubt in their mind that only for the purpose of proceedings under 1923 Act, the appellants have concocted the story of husband and wife living separately and if they had been living separately in view of certain disputes, the question of husband being a workman under her appears to be a farfetched one. It has been further held by the Apex Court that technically it may be possible that husband is employed under the wife, but, while arriving at a conclusion that when a dispute has been raised by other side, the overall situation should have been taken into consideration. The fact which speaks for itself shows that the owner of the tractor joined hands with the claimant for laying a claim only against the insurer, the claim was thus not bona-fide. 17. The aforestated opinion has been formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case under Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 and that too with regard to the wife claiming to have engaged her husband as workman. When there is evidence led by the claimants that the deceased was engaged as employee for the tractor trolley by his father, the facts of this case are quite distinguishable. It is not a common thing in the agriculture sector that whole of the family is engaged in the agriculture pursuits as it is family affair and is not only to be done by a particular member of the family. In such a situation the son working for his father on the tractor owned by him, insured by the appellant and on the basis of the preponderance of the probability of evidence which is required to be adopted in the trial of claim petitions under Motor Vehicle Act, the deceased can definitely come under the purview of the employee engaged by his father who was owner of the vehicle. No other point was urged to challenge the impugned order. 18. No other point was urged to challenge the impugned order. 18. For all what has been stated and discussed hereinabove, the appeal filed by the appellant is found without any merit and substance and is liable to be rejected. Impugned award is thus upheld. 19. Appeal is thus dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. Awarded compensation is directed to be released in favour of the claimants in terms of Award. No order as to costs.