JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Nalini Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Rakhi Rani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 10. 2. Instant Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., against the award dated 17.02.2010 passed in Compensation Case No. 18 of 2009, whereby the District Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga has allowed the application filed under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and awarded compensation of Rs 50,000/- within a month from the date of award failing which Insurance Company shall pay interest @ 9% on principal amount. 3. Brief facts of the case is that, the deceased Shankar Bhagat used to work as a labourer in Madho Brick Kiln (Ita Bhatta) and used to load bricks onto the tractor having Registration No. JH 08A 8113 and trailor having registration no. JH 08A 8114 and on the date of incident i.e. 15.09.2008 at about 8:00AM, he after loading the bricks onto the tractor having Registration No. JH 08A 8113 and trailor having Registration No. JH 08A 8114 started for Lohardaga from Gangapada and the tractor was being driven by its driver Binod Mahli. At about 8:30 AM near Nigni More, Ghasi Mohalla, as the driver was driving the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased fell down and crushed under the rear wheel of the vehicle and ultimately he succumbed to injuries. 4. An F.I.R. being Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 146/08 dated 15.09.2008 under Section 279, 304A of I.P.C. has been registered against Binod Mahli (driver of the tractor) on the basis of fardbeyan of Krishna Bhagat (brother of the deceased) and an application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed before the Court of District & Sessions Judge-cum- MACT, Lohardaga for interim compensation by the dependants of deceased against owner of offending tractor and appellant-Insurance Company. 5. After considering the material available on record, learned Tribunal passed the award dated 17.02.2010 directing the appellant- Insurance Company to pay Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Against above award, the appellant - Insurance Company preferred the present appeal and in this appeal respondent nos. 1 to 9 are the claimants and respondent no. 10 is the owner of the offending tractor. 6. 50,000/- as interim compensation under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Against above award, the appellant - Insurance Company preferred the present appeal and in this appeal respondent nos. 1 to 9 are the claimants and respondent no. 10 is the owner of the offending tractor. 6. Record of tribunal reveals that certified copy of the F.I.R., death certificate of the deceased, certificate of registration of tractor and trailor, fitness certificate of vehicle and insurance policy of above said tractor having registration no. JH 08A 8113 and trailor having registration no. JH 08A 8114 and post mortem report have been brought on record by the dependants of the deceased. 7. Appellant- Insurance Company has taken a plea of breach of terms and conditions by the owner and claimed exoneration from the liability to pay the amount to the dependants of deceased. There was specific plea taken on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company that the deceased was gratuitous passenger, as such there is no liability. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that no liability can be fasten on the shoulders of appellant - insurance company even under Section 140 of M.V. Act, on account of fact that, the deceased was gratuitous passenger. 9. As far as death of deceased on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor is concerned, it has not been disputed by the appellant - Insurance Company and contents of F.I.R. clearly speaks about the fact that the deceased was working as labourer in the Madho Brick Kiln (Ita Bhatta) and on the day of incident after loading the bricks on the trailor he along with other labourer started for Lohardaga from Gangapada and on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor the deceased fell down near the Nigni More Ghasi Mohalla and succumbed to injuries. 10. As far as, insurance policy of offending tractor is concerned, record reveals that vehicle i.e. tractor having registration no. JH 08A 8113 and trailor having registration no. JH 08A 8114 is insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Kisan Package Policy and was effective from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2009 and alleged accident took place on 15.09.2008, therefore on the date of incident tractor and trailor was well insured with the appellant company. 11. JH 08A 8113 and trailor having registration no. JH 08A 8114 is insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited under Kisan Package Policy and was effective from 01.06.2008 to 31.05.2009 and alleged accident took place on 15.09.2008, therefore on the date of incident tractor and trailor was well insured with the appellant company. 11. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, establishes "no fault liability" in certain cases of death or permanent disablement arising out of use of a Motor Vehicles. Hence the compensation is payable to the victims or their dependants without requiring the claimant to prove negligence or fault on the part of the vehicle owner or driver. Therefore, a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is generally not a valid defense for the insurer to deny compensation under Section 140. 12. As stated earlier, the tractor and trailor was insured under the insurance policy being Kisan Package Policy and during course of argument nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court regarding details of coverage under this policy. 13. Our own High Court in M.A. No. 253 of 2017 (Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, vs. Usha Devi and Ors.) at paragraph – 13 has held as under- “13. In the case in hand the policy of the offending tractor and trailer was a Kishan Package Policy and same was comprehensive policy. It offers protection to the farmer to his personal effects, household goods, livestock, poultry, personal insurance and Mediclaim. As such the deceased who was labourer upon the tractor and the said accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor as a result of which, the said tractor fell down in the ditch causing death of the labour deceased at the spot. After his death the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation since the insurance policy of the vehicle was a comprehensive policy” 14. The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in “New India Assurance Company Limited v. Usha Devi (Kumari)” reported in (2013) 1 ACC 802 has held as under: “19. Here, it is a case where deaths were caused due to use of Motor Vehicle and in the course of employment. The two persons were in the tractor in the course of their employments to bring the sugarcanes. 20. Here, it is a case where deaths were caused due to use of Motor Vehicle and in the course of employment. The two persons were in the tractor in the course of their employments to bring the sugarcanes. 20. It has been found as a fact that these two unfortunate labourers were travelling in the tractor which is goods carriage for the purposes of loading of sugarcane on the instructions of their employer. This being so, the risk of injury or death caused to them in the course of employment would be covered under the insurance policy. 21. There is another angle also. We have examined the original record containing insurance cover. It is mentioned thereunder that the insurance policy is comprehensive policy, the fact which was also pleaded by the owners in their written statement. In the insurance cover, it is not mentioned that the policy is ' Act policy— instead it is ' Comp. Ins.— . It implies that the insurance policy was comprehensive insurance policy, so also has been found by the Workmen— s Compensation Commissioner. This being so, obviously the risk of lives of labourers and bodily injuries would also be covered under the insurance policy. 25. In view of the fact that the insurance policy in the present case being comprehensive insurance it would cover all risk insurance except loss caused by fraudulent act by the insured. The burden was upon the insurer to produce copy of insurance policy to show that the case on hand, was under the except clause, if any. It was neither pleaded nor proved by the insurer that they are not liable to compensate the claimants notwithstanding the fact that it is a case of comprehensive insurance.” 15. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lala Ram Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 2000, Reported in AIR 2002 Raj. 3 wherein it has been contended that the driver of the offending tractor No. RJ-9R/1421 was having no valid license at the relevant time of accident. As such, by allowing the driver without having been valid license, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the learned Tribunal erred in passing the award against the appellant-insurer, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held as under: “8. Chapter X of the Act provides liability without fault in certain cases. As such, by allowing the driver without having been valid license, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the learned Tribunal erred in passing the award against the appellant-insurer, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has held as under: “8. Chapter X of the Act provides liability without fault in certain cases. Section 140 of the Act provides liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Sub-section (1) of Section 140 provides where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle or Motor Vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Subsection (2) of Section 140 of the Act provides that the amount of compensation which shall be payable under sub-section (1) in respect of the death of any person shall be a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees and the amount of compensation payable under that sub-section in respect of the permanent disablement of any person shall be a fixed sum of twenty five thousand rupees. Sub- section (3) of Section 140 of the Act provides that in any claim for compensation under sub-section (1) the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-section (4) of Section 140 of the Act provides that a claim for compensation under sub-section (1) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement. Thus, while making the Award under Chapter X of the Act, the Tribunal is required to satisfy that the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of Motor Vehicle or vehicles, owner of the vehicle or insurer, as the case may be, shall be liable to pay fixed amount as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 140 of the Act. The claim of compensation for death or disablement has to be disbursed expeditiously. 9. Moreso, the claim petition under Section 140 of the Act cannot be adjudicated alike with the claim petition filed under Sections 165 and 166 of the Act on the principle of fault liability. Defenses, if any, available to the appellant- insurer can only be raised in the main claim petition under Section 166 of the Act by joining the issue and the learned Tribunal after framing the proper issue and only after the evidence of the parties is recorded can come to the conclusion with regard to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and not otherwise. 16. This matter should be taken from other angle also that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is considered as a beneficial and welfare- oriented piece of legislation, particularly concerning compensation for victim of Road accident and dealing with case of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Court should interpret it liberally to ensure the just and fair compensation to the victim of accident case. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186 at paragraph no. 15 held as under : “15. At the outset, we may reiterate as has been consistently said by this Court in a series of cases that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident.” 18. The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident.” 18. In view of aforesaid discussions, this Court is of considered view that there is no infirmity in the award dated 17.02.2010 passed by the District Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 18 of 2009, as such, the impugned award is affirmed, resultantly the instant appeal, is hereby dismissed. 19. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company be remitted to the Tribunal by learned Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Further the Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the award along with the interest as awarded, before the Tribunal within a period of 45 days, which shall be paid to the claimants by the learned Tribunal/executing court after notice and due verification. 20. Let trial court record be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.