The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer in cases of unauthorized carriage of persons in a goods carriage vehicle and the requirement of a valid driving license for the driver of a motor vehicle.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge and Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, in M.A.C.P. No. 205 of 1992, decided on 19.12.1995.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as below:-

Present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are original claimants and they filed the claim petition for compensation in respect of death of Niwarti Bande, who was husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 5. It is case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 that Niwarti Bande was a labourer of about 36 years of age. He was earning Rs. 1000/- per month. On 12.04.1992 at about noon deceased Niwarti Bande, P.W.2 – Dattatray Bande, one Bandu and Madhav had gone to village Tiruka, Tal. Udgir for loading manure of one Govind Tidke. The work was taken by said four persons for Rs.75/- per trip. The manure was being transported in the tractor trolley owned by respondent No.7 who was original opponent No.2. The tractor trolly was being driven by respondent No.6. The tractor was bearing No. MYI3751 and the trolly was bearing No. MYI3752. The tractor and the trolly were insured with the appellant insurance-company. It is further case of the claimants that on 12.04.1982 at about noon time near bus stop of village Tiruka, the tractor trolly was being driven rashly and negligent by respondent No.6. As a result, the trolly was disconnected from the tractor and tilted on its side and Niwarti Bande was thrown on the ground from the trolly and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 stated that they are entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 3,38,000/-, but restricted to claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. The claim was resisted by all the respondents who filed separate written statements. Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 denied that the tractor was driven rashly or negligently or Niwarti was travelling in the trolly at the relevant time. However, it was admitted that cow dung (manure) was loaded in the trolly and was being taken to the field of respondent No. 7. It was also denied that deceased Niwarti was servant of respondent No.7. It is stated that tiepin which joined tractor and trolly was broken and as a result the accident had taken place. The trolly fell on its side and at that time the deceased, who was walking by the side of the trolly, came under the trolly and died.

4. The appellant insurance company stated that there was breach of policy in as much as deceased Niwarti and others were carried in the trolly which was not permitted. Moreover, the driver of the tractor was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and there was no fitness certificate concerning the vehicle. The age and income of the deceased were denied.

5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. No specific issue regarding breach of the policy or regarding licence was framed, though defences taken by insurer were discussed. The deceased was getting Rs. 1000/- per month as wages. So, dependency was considered at Rs. 700/- per month. For the age of 40, the multiplier is considered as 13. Total compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- inclusive of N.F.L. Was awarded.

6. At the time of arguments before me it is the breach of the policy which is vehemently argued before this Court. It is argued that the Tribunal did not given proper consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. Though owner/respondent No.7 produced copy of licence of respondent No.6, since it was not produced by the insurance company, it was not taken into consideration. It was also observed that the tractor was light motor vehicle and therefore driving licence produced cannot be said to be invalid. The Trial Court referred to certain decisions in para 10 of its judgment. It is argued that though tractor is light motor vehicle, but when tractor is accompanied with tr