JUDGMENT : BIRENDRA KUMAR, J. 1. A brief background leading to these appeals is that on 14.9.2001, certain people were travelling on a utility vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-19-1-G1355. Near Village Devi Koat, due to rash and negligent driving, the utility vehicle dashed against a big stone with its rear wheel and the tyre burst. Consequently, the vehicle turned turtle and the people travelling therein sustained injuries. One Kachhu Ram, aged about 60 years, by profession a Tailor also sustained injury and died. The dependents of Kachhu Ram filed Motor Accident Claims Case No. 10/2002 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jailsalmer. Injured Mukesh filed Motor Accident Claim Case No. 8/2002. The learned Tribunal made award of Rs. 1,40,000/- along with 9% interest in favour of dependents of Kachhu Ram and award of Rs. 14,000/- for injuries to Mukesh. It is relevant to mention here that some other claim petitions were also decided by the impugned judgment dated 2.12.2003, as they were also related to the injureds travelling on the same utility vehicle. 2. However, the Tribunal found that since a goods vehicle was carrying passengers, it violated the terms of the policy. As such, the insurer was held not liable to pay the compensation rather, owner of the vehicle was held liable. The owner of the vehicle in both the aforesaid claim cases have challenged, the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal that insurer is not liable, in these appeals. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the accident took place due to bursting of tyres of the vehicle in question and not due to negligence, hence the Tribunal wrongly exonerated the insurer of the liability. Next contention is that owner had no knowledge that the driver who had gone to load goods in the vehicle was carrying passengers on that, therefore, owner should have been exonerated. Moreover, under Section 150 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is bound to satisfy the award in favour of a third party for the injuries or death sustained during the accident. 4. The claimants respondents were noticed but they did not contest these appeals nor they have filed any separate appeals. 5. Moreover, under Section 150 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer is bound to satisfy the award in favour of a third party for the injuries or death sustained during the accident. 4. The claimants respondents were noticed but they did not contest these appeals nor they have filed any separate appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company contends that there is overwhelming evidence on the record that the vehicle involved in the accident was a goods carrying vehicle and several passengers were being carried on the same for hire and reward, therefore, there is direct violation of the terms of policy, hence the Tribunal has correctly held that insurer is not liable. There is consistent judicial pronouncement that when there is violation of terms of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Reliance has been placed on judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1334 . 6. No doubt the claimants witnesses Chhotmal witness No. 1, Sagat Mal witness No. 3 and witness No. 2 Kunti Devi have admitted that the utility vehicle was being used as a Taxi. Chhotmal had stated that he got boarded his father on the vehicle after paying Rs. 10 to the driver as fare. The number of claim petitions decided by the impugned judgment would reveal that number of passengers on the vehicle were more than the capacity of 4 plus driver mentioned in the Registration Certificate as well as insurance policy. The vehicle was to carry goods to the tune of 2750 Kgs. Instead of goods, passengers were being carried therein, therefore, there is apparent violation of terms of the policy by the appellants. Consequently, the impugned award cannot be interfered with on the prayer of the appellant. The vehicle was to carry goods to the tune of 2750 Kgs. Instead of goods, passengers were being carried therein, therefore, there is apparent violation of terms of the policy by the appellants. Consequently, the impugned award cannot be interfered with on the prayer of the appellant. However, the appellate court has power under O.41 R.33 CPC to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees. In Ranjana Prakash and Others vs. Divisional Manager and Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of power of the appellate court under Order 41 R.33 CPC and held as follows: “7............where the claimants seeks compensation against the owner and the insurer of the vehicle and the Tribunal makes the award only against the owner, on an appeal by the owner challenging the quantum, the appellate court can make the insurer jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, along with the owner, even though the claimants had not challenged the non-grant of relief against the insurer. Be that as it may.” 7. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded in Para 110 as follows: “(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with Sub-Section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by Sub-Section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by Sub-Section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in Sub-Section (4) with proviso thereunder and Sub-Section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by, relegating them to the remedy before, regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 8. In Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3047/2017 decided on 21.2.2017, the Tribunal held that the passengers on the Tata Sumo were gratuitous passengers, hence exonerated the insurer of the duty from any liability to pay the compensation. The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that insurer was not liable because passengers in the car were gratuitous passengers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the earlier judgments and held that even in cases of death of gratuitous passengers, the insurer of the offending vehicle is required to first satisfy the award and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings. 9. In Balu Krishna Chavan vs. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Others, (2023) ACC 3 (SC), the victims of accidents were travelling in a truck as gratuitous passengers, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “8. Hence, the only aspect for our consideration herein, is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, an order to direct the Insurance Company to “pay and recover”, is required to be made. On this aspect, the law is well settled that if the liability of the Insurance Company is decided and they are held not to be liable, ordinarily, there shall be no direction to “pay and recover.” However, in the facts and circumstances arising in each case, appropriate orders are required to be made by this Court to meet the ends of justice. 9 In the instant case, the appellant has relied on the judgment dated 21.02.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 2017 titled as Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh and Others In the said case also, a Bench of this Court, having referred to the earlier decisions in Para-15 and 16 of that Judgment, has concluded that normally, there would be no order to “pay and recover.” However, in the said facts, this Court, to meet the ends of justice, had taken into consideration the fact situation though, the claimant therein, was a ‘gratuitous passenger’ and had kept in view that the benevolent object of the Act and had directed the payment by the Insurance Company and to recover the amount. 10. Therefore, on the legal aspect, it is clear that in all cases such order of “pay and recover” would not arise when the Insurance Company is not liable but would, in the facts and circumstances, be considered by this Court to meet the ends of justice.” 10. A victim of a road accident cannot be left stranded in view of the benevolent object of the Act, therefore, the insurer respondent No. 3 is directed to pay to the victim and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle in the same proceedings. This order be complied with within two months. 11. The interim amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellants in both the appeals at the time of filing of the appeals shall go to the victim-respondents and the insurer would adjust the aforesaid amount while making final payment. 12. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.