JUDGMENT : (UMESH M. ADIGA, J.) This appeal is filed by the insurance company, (respondent No.2) challenging the judgment and award dated 01.04.2015, passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maddur, (for short the tribunal), in MVC No.876/2013. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.04.2011 at about 1.30 pm, the deceased Vikas met with accident on Somanahalli to Kodihalli road due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-42/T-3299 by its driver. As a result the said Vikas sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 07.05.2011. 4. It is further case of the claimants that the deceased was a student aged about 14 years, when he met with the accident. For these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-. 5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2/insurance company contended that the deceased was travelling in the said tractor bearing registration No.KA- 42/T-3299 as unauthorized passenger at the time of accident and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. They also denied the other averments stated in the claim petition. With these reasons, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 6. The respondent No.3 i.e. subsequent purchaser of the offending vehicle denied the averments of the claim petition and further submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and exorbitant. Further, it is the contention of the respondent No.3 that he is the owner of the said vehicle and the same is insured with respondent No.2. Further, the policy was in force as on the date of accident. If any award of compensation is passed in favour of claimants, respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same. With these reasons, he prays to dismiss the claim petition, against him. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its determination. 8. The claimants to prove their case, examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Similarly, respondent No.2/insurer examined RW.1 and respondent No.3 examined as RW.3 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 9. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for its determination. 8. The claimants to prove their case, examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. Similarly, respondent No.2/insurer examined RW.1 and respondent No.3 examined as RW.3 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties and on appreciation of material available on record, awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with interest at 7% p.a from the date of petition till realization. 10. The Tribunal held that the deceased was not travelling in the tractor as unauthorized passenger, since that was not proved by respondent No.2 and directed that all the respondents i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.2/insurer has filed present appeal. 11. During the pendency of this appeal, the insurance company filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking permission to produce the certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.189/2011 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Maddur. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants orally objected to allow the said application. 12. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties on main appeal as well as IA No.1/2025. 13. While disposing of the claim petition, both sides have not produced a copy of the charge sheet. The appellant/insurance company has produced the same in this appeal by filing an application and it is a relevant document that enables this Court to decide the matter on merits fully and finally. The said charge sheet is not a suspicious document and true copy of the public record. It is the duty of the claimants to place on record the relevant documents so as to prove their contentions. Under these circumstances, the application is allowed and the said certified copy of the charge sheet is considered as an evidence in this appeal. 14. Facts of accident and death of a boy named Vikas, aged about 14 years are not in dispute in this case. 15. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was walking at the side of the road to return to his village. 14. Facts of accident and death of a boy named Vikas, aged about 14 years are not in dispute in this case. 15. The contention of the claimants is that the deceased was walking at the side of the road to return to his village. At that time, the driver of the tractor drove his vehicle negligently and hit him. As a result, he sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Similarly, the contention of appellant/insurance company is that the deceased was travelling on the mud guard of the tractor as unauthorized passenger. He fell from the tractor and sustained injuries and died. 16. The charge sheet produced by the appellant/insurance company in the present appeal reveals that the deceased Vikas was travelling in the tractor and the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner near the curve, as a result of which, Vikas lost balance and fell down and sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. After investigation of the case, the concerned police filed charge sheet. Both side did not produce this important document before Tribunal. 17. It appears that the claimants have not challenged the judgment of the Tribunal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 18. The contents of the First Information Report is based on the case made by the claimants in the complaint that the deceased was a pedestrian and while proceeding near curve of Katte Somanahalli-K.Kodihalli Road, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit him and as a result, he sustained injuries and later succumbed to injuries. During inquest mahazar, claimant No.2 has stated before the police that deceased was travelling in the tractor and in the curve, he lost balance and fell down. The investigating officer filed the charge sheet stating that the said boy was travelling on the tractor and in the curve, he lost balance and sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment, succumbed to the injuries. It appears that deliberately the claimants did not produce the said document before the Tribunal and the claimants did not approach the Court with clean hands. It appears that both owner and claimants tried to hide real facts to claim compensation from insurer and different version was given in the complaint. 19. Death of the boy by the user of the vehicle is not disputed. It appears that both owner and claimants tried to hide real facts to claim compensation from insurer and different version was given in the complaint. 19. Death of the boy by the user of the vehicle is not disputed. Hence the core question that arise for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants or owners has to pay the same. Undisputedly, the said tractor was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company and respondent Nos.1 and 3 are the owners of the said vehicle, at the time of accident. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company contends that the deceased was a passenger in the tractor and that the owner of the tractor has violated the terms and conditions of the policy i.e. carrying the passenger on the mudguard of the tractor. It is a fundamental breach of policy condition and therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to compensate the claimants and they have to recover the same from the owner as well as custodian of the tractor. 21. Learned counsel for the claimants contends that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. As per the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court (a) in MFA No.22893/2012 dated 06.01.2025 in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Irawwa, w/o. Shankarappa Rathod and Others (b) in MFA No.5843/2016 dated 15.10.2024, in the case of Smt. Venkatalakshmamma and Others vs. Sri. G N Subramani and Another , stands on the footing of the learned counsel for the claimant and (c)Decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.2135/2023 in the case of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Honnamma & Ors., decided on 05.05.2025. 22. In the first two cases, victims of accident were coolies travelling in the tractor and policy of insurance was package policy. Considering the said facts, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court held that in such events, insurer is liable to pay compensation. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Honnamma's case (supra) is also not applicable to facts of the present case. 23. Further, the learned counsel for the claimant relied upon one more judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Renganathan and Ors. Vs. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Honnamma's case (supra) is also not applicable to facts of the present case. 23. Further, the learned counsel for the claimant relied upon one more judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Renganathan and Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., reported in 2023 ACJ 623 . 24. I have gone through the above said judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants. In the above cases, facts are similar to the facts of the present case. In that case also deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor. The Hon'ble Apex Court directed the insurer to pay the compensation to third party with a liberty to recover from the owner of the vehicle. In the present case also as per allegations in the charge sheet, the victim was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor, which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first instance, with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 25. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and it may be reduced to 6% p.a. 26. The Tribunal in exercise of its discretion has awarded the rate of interest at 7% p.a. which is not much exorbitant to interfere by this Court. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel is rejected. 27. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 01.04.2015, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Maddur, in MVC No. 876/2013 is modified, in respect of liability of respondents to pay compensation. iii) Appellant/insurance company is directed to pay the compensation with a liberty to recover the same from owner as well as custodian of the tractor in accordance with law. iv) Remaining portion of the award is not disturbed. v) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. vi) Send back the Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment. vii) Draw award accordingly.