JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/insurance company, who is original respondent No.2 in MACP No.32 of 2007, has challenged the judgment and award dated 01/09/2008 in the aforesaid claim petition passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Akola (hereafter referred to as ‘the learned tribunal’). Under the impugned judgment and award, the learned tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.3,95,000/- inclusive of NFL amount to the present respondent / claimants Nos.1 to 6 alongwith interest @ Rs.9% from the date of petition till its realization. The learned tribunal has held the present appellant /insurance company as well as original respondent No.1 Sk. Jauddin Sk. Chand i.e. owner of offending tractor and trolley, being liable to pay compensation to the claimants under joint and several liability. 2. Admittedly, the offending tractor and trolley involved in the accident, was owned by respondent No.7 Sk. Jauddin Sk. Chand and it was insured with the appellant / insurance company on the date of accident. Further, the appellant / insurance company has not challenged the quantum of compensation. Further, as per the case of the claimants, deceased Sunil Dongre was under employment of respondent No.7 and while driving the said tractor and trolley loaded with sand, deceased in attempt to save one boy coming from opposite direction on bicycle, took the said tractor at one side of the road, lost his balance and fell down and came under the wheel of tractor and died. 3. The appellant / insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and award only on following three grounds: i) Deceased himself was negligent ii) deceased was not covered under the policy of tractor and trolley and it was only for covering risk of third party and iii) deceased was not having a valid driving license at the time fo accident and therefore, the appellant / insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company by raising aforesaid three grounds vehemently argued that the accident had caused due to own negligence of deceased and therefore, he being not third party, was not at all covered under the policy Exhibit-41. He also contended that deceased was not having any valid driving license. Thus, he claimed exoneration of the appellant / insurance company from liability of paying compensation. He also relied on following judgments: A) Surender Kumar Arora and another vs. Dr. He also contended that deceased was not having any valid driving license. Thus, he claimed exoneration of the appellant / insurance company from liability of paying compensation. He also relied on following judgments: A) Surender Kumar Arora and another vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla and others , 2012 STPL (Web) 202 (SC) B) New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs. Sadanand Mukhi and Others , AIR 2009 SC 1788 C) Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.191 of 2017,Mrs. Safiakhatoon Kamal Ahmed Khan and others vs. Mr. Farooq Merchand and another, decided on 28/06/2022. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / claimants supported the impugned judgment. He pointed out that the appellant / insurance company did not produce the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, it could not establish that the said policy covered only risk of third party. As such, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard rival submissions. Also perused documents, record and proceedings and impugned judgment alongwith the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The grounds on which the appeal is filed, are already mentioned above. So far as first ground is concerned, the appellant / insurance company is claiming that deceased himself was driving the tractor in rash and negligent manner and therefore, for his own negligence he cannot claim compensation either from owner and appellant / insurance company of the tractor and trolley. For that purpose he has relied upon the judgments as mentioned above. On going through those judgments, it appears that the principle underlined for exonerating the insurance company from the liability of paying compensation is that the deceased, who was rider of offending vehicle, expired in a self accident and not being a third party, the claim against the owner or the insurer of the offending vehicle, is not maintainable. Admittedly, the deceased was driving the said tractor and trolley loaded with sand at the relevant time. However, the appellant / insurance company has not examined any witness to show that the accident had taken place due to sole negligence of the deceased. On the contrary, the police papers show that the accident took place since the deceased was attempting to save life of one boy coming from opposite direction on bicycle. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that deceased himself was negligent at the time of accident. On the contrary, the police papers show that the accident took place since the deceased was attempting to save life of one boy coming from opposite direction on bicycle. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that deceased himself was negligent at the time of accident. As such, the aforesaid judgments on the point of negligence of deceased, are not applicable in the instant case. 8. So far as limitation of policy of the tractor and trolley which is at Exhibit-41 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company vehemently argued that it was only third party policy and since the deceased was not third party being the driver of offending vehicle, he was not at all covered under the said policy. However, on going through record and proceedings the cover note at Exhibit-41 regarding the policy of tractor is not at all legible. Further, it is only a xerox copy and it is not at all readable in respect of contents therein. Certain legible words appear thereon in respect of accepting premium on various counts. However, from bare perusal of the said cover note Exhibit-41 it cannot be inferred that the it was only third party policy. It is for the appellant / insurance company to produce the terms and conditions of the policy for contending that it was only a third party policy and deceased was not covered under the same. However, the witness of the insurance company has admitted in cross-examination that no terms and conditions of the policy are produced on record. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company also contended that the policy was for use of tractor and trolley only for agricultural and forestry purpose, but same also cannot be read from the contents of Exhibit-41. Even it is presumed that under the policy offending tractor was to be used only for the aforesaid purpose but the appellant / insurance company has not examined any witness to that effect. Admittedly, the owner i.e. respondent No.7 contended in his written statement that the deceased behind his back was carrying sand in the trolley. Further, wife of the deceased has also stated before the court that at the relevant time her husband was carrying sand in the tractor trolley as per the order of respondent No.1 i.e. present respondent No.7-owner of the tractor and trolley. Further, wife of the deceased has also stated before the court that at the relevant time her husband was carrying sand in the tractor trolley as per the order of respondent No.1 i.e. present respondent No.7-owner of the tractor and trolley. Though it is stated by the wife of the deceased, but she has not stated that the deceased was carrying the sand for commercial purpose. On the contrary, she has stated that the deceased was following the order of respondent No.7 / owner of the tractor and trolley at the relevant time. There is no reliable evidence brought on record by the appellant / insurance company by examining the owner that the sand was being carried out for commercial purpose. In absence of such evidence it cannot be inferred that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy specially when the terms and conditions of the policy are not brought on record by the appellant / insurance company. Therefore, in such circumstances it can not be inferred on the basis of available material that the deceased drove the offending tractor and trolley in brach of conditions of the policy. 9. So far as third and last ground of challenge is concerned, it is contended by the appellant / insurance company that the deceased was not having a valid driving license. However, the learned tribunal by quoting appropriate sections and rules of Motor Vehicles Act and by relying on the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1418 ( National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria ) has come to the conclusion that the deceased was having a valid license as per the evidence of the appellant / insurance company itself to drive light motor vehicle, which covered the light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. In the resent judgment also the Hon’ble Apex Court has clarified that the insurance company cannot absolved from the liability of paying compensation merely because of driver of the offending vehicle was having light motor vehicle non-transport license but found driving license of LMV transport vehicle. Under such circumstances, the third objection raised by the appellant / insurance company is also not in existence. 10. Under such circumstances, the third objection raised by the appellant / insurance company is also not in existence. 10. Therefore, considering all these aspects, no force is found in the present appeal and there is absolutely no need to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.