This is an appeal by non-applicant No.3 United India Insurance Company. Respondent is the claimant. Her son Kamdev was working as a casual labourer on 14-10-1991. He was working with the Central Armament Depot at Pulgaon. For the purpose of said employment on the date of incident he was travelling in vehicle No. MH-31/G-772. It is alleged that while he was so travelling in the premises of the Central Armament Depot the vehicle overturned and Kamdev died on the spot. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. Matter was reported by the Engineer of respondent No. I Company to whom the tractor belonged, to the police. Offence was registered against respondent No.2 the driver of the said vehicle. It is alleged that the deceased was earning Rs. 1000/- to 1200/- per month and since he has died the mother who is claimant has filed the application.

2. Respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle filed a Written Statement and resisted the application on several grounds. Respondent denies that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving. It is the contention of the respondent No.1 that he had given specific instructions to the driver not to carry any labourers in the vehicle, in spite of that he did so and therefore respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that respondent No.3, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No. 3's main contention was that some 25 coolies were travelling in the said tractor and therefore there was a breach of the condition of policy and respondent No. 3 Insurance Company therefore stands exonerated.

3. Learned Judge of the Tribunal found that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving and he also found that the breach of the condition was not such as to disentitle the applicant/claimant from claiming compensation. He awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and being aggrieved by that order this appeal has been preferred.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Thakur. None appears for the respondent.

5. Shri Thakur learned counsel raised two points before me, first according to him there was a breach of the condition of the policy inasmuch as the tractor was found carrying more than 20 coolies instead of permitted 6. Second ground upon which he challenges the award is that persons travelling in the tractor were gratuitous passengers and therefore there was breach of the condition of the policy.

6. Following points arise for my determination and I am recording my findings on them:

1. Whether there was a breach of condition of policy? Yes.

2. Whether such breach of condition of policy was such as to exonerate the Insurance Company? No.

REASONS:

7. The First Information Report lodged by the employee of the owner i.e. non-applicant No. 1 clearly indicates that about 20 to 22 labourers were travelling in the tractor trolly. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that more than 6 labourers were travelling in it. Certified copy of the policy of insurance shows that additional insurance was paid for 6 coolies to be carried in the trolly. Ordinarily therefore non-applicant No. 1 was entitled to carry only 6 coolies. There is, therefore, no doubt that more persons than mentioned in the policy were' travelling in the tractor. Shri Thakur learned counsel submits that this breach of condition of policy is enough to completely exonerate the insurance company. He also submits that such breach of condition of policy should be strictly construed by the Court. Submission of Shri Thakur cannot be accepted. This Court in a decision reported in Shivraj Vasant Bhagwat vs. Shevanta Dattaram Indulkar and another, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 175 = 1997 ACJ 1014 observed as follows:

"The terms of the policy of insurance have not to be construed strictly and to be read down to advance the main purpose of the contract. The main purpose of the policy is to indemnify the damage caused